Thisdissertationhasbeen M Icrofilm Ed Exactly As Receiv Ed: U N Iversity M Icrofilm S, Inc., A N N Arbor, M Ichigan

This dissertation h as b een
m icrofilm ed exactly as received 69-11,650
HOOPER, Donald B ruce, 1936-

DIFFERENTIAL UTILITY OF LEADERSHIP OPINIONS
IN CLASSICAL AND MODERATOR MODELS FOR TOE
PREDICTION OF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS.
The Ohio State U n iv ersity , Ph.D ., 1968

B u sin ess A dm inistration
U niversity M icrofilms, Inc., A nn Arbor, M ichigan

DIFFERENTIAL UTILITY OF LEADERSHIP OPINIONS
IN CLASSICAL AND MODERATOR MODELS FOR THE
PREDICTION OF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Donald Bruce Hooper, B. Sc. in Bus. Adm. , M. Bus. Adm.
•k ~k -k -k k «V
The Ohio State University

1968
Approved by
Adviser
Department of Business
Organization
PREFACE
As a member of the United States Air Force, I must

serve notice that the views expressed herein are those of
the author and do not necessarily reflect the official
views of the Air Force Academy or the Department of Defense.
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Charles
B. Hicks for serving as the chairman of my dissertation
committee and to Doctors Orlando C. Behling and Ralph M.
Stogdill for serving as members of the committee. It is
a pleasure to acknowledge my indebtedness to them for their
advice, assistance, and encouragement during the conduct of
this study. I wish to thank Dr. Philip M. Burgess for
serving as the Graduate School Representative on the exami
nation committee. I would like to take this opportunity
to especially acknowledge the guidance and support provided
by Doctors Charles B. Hicks and Ralph M. Stogdill through
out my graduate studies at The Ohio State University.
I wish to thank my colleagues on the staff of the
Department of Psychology and Leadership at the United
States Air Force Academy for their assistance in this study.
A special acknowledgment is extended to Major Hal. W. H e n
drick, Ph.D., and Major Gilbert R. Kaats, Ph.D., for their
contributions and assistance. Lt. Col. Ogden Brown, Jr.,
Ph.D., now Assistant to the Secretary of-the Air Force pro
vided valuable suggestions for the design of the study.
ii
Mr. Risdon Weston of the Registrar’s office at the Air
Force Academy provided data which made this study possible.
The assistance of the staff of the Frank J. Seiler Research
Laboratory at the Air Force Academy is gratefully acknow
ledged. Miss Anne Forbes provided technical assistance in
the design of the computer programs and Miss Pamela A.-
Gould prepared the list of references for the computer
based reference system.
A special note of appreciation is expressed to Mrs.
Evelyn Baum for typing the final manuscript.
Acknowledgement is made to Science Research Associ
ates, Inc. for granting permission to use the LEADERSHIP
OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE by Edwin A. Fleishman for this study.
I wish to express a personal note of deep gratitude to
my wife Sissa and to our children, Christine and Michelle,
for their support and encouragement over the years and for
their patience and understanding during the conduct of this
study. I want to thank my parents for the understanding,
encouragement, and support they have provided over the
years.
Donald B. Hooper
U . S . Air Force
Academy, Colorado
VITA
April 10, 1936 Bora - Columbus, Ohio

1957......... B. Sc. in Bus. Adm., The Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio
1 9 5 8......... M. Bus. Adm., The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
1958-1968 . . Commissioned Officer, United States Air
Force
1958-1961 . . Instructor in Management, University of
Maryland, European Division
1962-1964 . . Instructor, Department of Behavioral
Sciences, U. S. Air Force Academy,
Colorado
1964-1966 . . Graduate Student, Department of Business
Organization, The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
1966-1967 . . Assistant Professor of Psychology and
Management, Department of Psychology and
Leadership, U. S. Air Force Academy,
Colorado
1968, Associate Professor of Psychology and
Management, Department of Psychology
and Leadership, U. S. Air Force A c a
demy, Colorado
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Management

Studies in Management. Professors Orlando C. Behling,
Ralph C. Davis, Charles B. Hicks, and Michael J.
Jucius.
Studies in Behavioral Science. Professor Ralph M.
Stogdill
Studies in Economics. Professor Alvin E. Coons
Studies in Finance. Professor John K. Pfahl
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
P R E F A C E ............................................ ii
V I T A ................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES...................................... vii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1

Brief Theoretical Background
Significance of the Problem
Statement of the Hypotheses
Additional Questions and Supplemental
Research
II. SURVEY OF LITERATURE AND PROBLEM .......... 12
Prediction Models
Prediction of Leadership Effectiveness
at the Air Force Academy
III. METHOD 2 8
The Research Setting and Samples

The Variables and Methods for Collect
ing Data
Analysis of Data
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4 3
Hypothesis I
Hypothesis II
Hypothesis III
Question I
Question II
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 8 6
v
APPENDIX
A: Leadership Opinion Questionnaire........... 107
B: Intercorrelations Among 33 Variables. ... ^ 11
REFERENCES.......................................... n2
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Raw Score Means, Standard Deviations,

Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations
of the Dimension Scores in the Leader
ship Opinion Questionnaire (Class of
1969 ) ..................................
2. Raw -Score Means, Standard Deviations,

Reliabilities, and Intercorre’lation
of the Dimension Scores in the Leader
ship Opinion Questionnaire (Class of
1970). ................................ 33
3. Leadership Composite Scores for Candi

dates and Cadets Exceeding Given Scores
(Classes of 1969 and 1970)............... 35
4. Validities and Comparison of Multiple

Correlation Coefficients Obtained from
Regression Analyses Against the Military
Rating, Excluding Versus Including the
Experimental Predictors (Class of 1969) . 45

Experimental Predictors ( Class of 1969). 46
6. Test of Contribution of the Experimental

Predictors for Prediction of Leadership
Effectiveness (Class of 1969) ........... - 47
vii
Experimental Predictors (Class of 1970). . 49
8 . Validities and Comparison of Multiple

Experimental Predictors (Class of 1970).. 50
9. Test of Contribution of the Experimental

Predictors for Prediction of Leadership
Effectiveness (Class of 1 9 7 0 ) ........... 51
10. Standard Score Means and Correlations Be

tween the Leadership Composite and the
Military Rating for Low, Moderate, and
High Initiating Structure G r o u p s ......... 53

Military Rating for Low and High Ini
tiating Structure G r o u p s .................. 56

Military Rating for Low, Moderate, and
High Consideration G r o u p s ................ 59

Military Rating for Low and High C o n
sideration G r o u p s ......................... 60

M ilitary Rating for Combinations of Ini
tiating Structure and Consideration
S c o r e s ....................................... 62
Vlll
15, Regression Analysis Against the Military
Rating, Initiating Structure Groups. . . 65
16. Regression Analysis Against the Military

Rating, Consideration G r o u p s ............ 66
17. Correlations Between the Predicted and

Actual Military Ratings for Initiating
Structure G r o u p s ........................... 67
18. Correlations Between the Predicted and

Actual Military Ratings for Consider
ation G r o u p s ............................... 68
19. Items With High Factor Loadings on Factor

I: Initiating Structure.................. 73

II: Consideration .................... 75

III: Change ............................... 76
22. Raw Score Means, Standard Deviations, R e

liabilities, and Intercorrelations of the
Factored Dinension Scores in the Leader
ship Opinion Questionnaire (Classes of
1969 and 1970) ............................. 77
23. Means for Initiating Structure Groups on

USAFA Selection Variables and the Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule Measures . . 81
24. Means for Consideration Groups on the

Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
M e a s u r e s .................................... 84
ix
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the

utility of a moderator prediction model as compared to a
classical prediction model for the prediction of leadership
effectiveness. The secondary purpose was to evaluate the
utility of leadership role expectations when used as pre
dictors of leadership effectiveness in the framework of a
classical prediction model and when used as moderator vari
ables in a moderator model. Research was also conducted to
answer the two questions which are stated following the
presentation of the hypotheses.
The design of this study reflected the current theo
retical interest in developing more effective prediction
models in general and in improving the prediction of lead
ership effectiveness in particular. The study attempted
to improve the prediction of the leadership effectiveness
of cadets at the United States Air Force Academy. Thus,
the research is related to the practical problem of im
proving the selection system employed by the U. S. Air
Force Academy. A brief review of the theoretical back
ground is appropriate to establish a frame of reference
for the discussion of the specific problem investigated
by this study.
2
Brief Theoretical Background
This brief review discusses some of the major theoret

ical considerations concerning prediction models and role
theory. These topics are covered in more detail in Chapter
II, "Survey of the Literature and Problem."
Prediction Models: Traditional and Modified

The term "traditional prediction model" is used to refer
to the usual prediction (or validation) model derived from
classical psychometric theory. This model is based on the
assumption of simple and direct correlations between the pre- ~
dictors and the criteria. Errors of measurement and predic
tion are assumed to be equal and random for all individuals
over the entire range of predictor and criterion scores and
the possibility of interaction effects among variables is
ignored (Ghiselli, 1963). Commenting on the limitations of
traditional prediction models, Dunnette (1966) stated that
"... such a simple linkage of predictors and criteria is ser
iously oversimplified when viewed against the many complex
ities in predicting human behavior.'..jj). 104;." In discus
sing the general problem ,^f selection and assessment, Porter
(1966) stated that, "No doubt the most important development
in the area of selection in recent years has been the in
creasing skepticism concerning the assumptions of classical
psychometric theory and the associated classical prediction
model jjp. 402j ."
Dunnette (1963) advocated a change from the classical
or traditional prediction model and has proposed a more com
plex model which
permits the possibility of predictors being differ
entially useful for predicting the behaviors of
/
3
different subsets of individuals. Further, it
shows that similar job behaviors may be predict
able by quite different patterns of interaction
between groupings of predictors and individuals
or even that the same level of performance on
predictors can lead to substantially different
patterns of job behavior for different individ
uals. Finally the model recognizes the annoy
ing reality that the same or similar job b e
haviors can, after passing through the situa
tional filter, lead to quite different organi
zational consequences p. 318_ .
One specific application of the theory underlying this

modified model is the use of moderator variables to sort
heterogeneous groups of individuals into homogeneous subgroups
to enhance prediction validities. Ghiselli (1960) has indi
cated that there are situations where the correlation between
the scores on a given test and the criterion is negligible,
and therefore these scores have low validity when used as pre
dictors within the framework of a traditional prediction m o
del. He provided empirical evidence showing that these same
scores could be used as a basis for establishing subgroups
for which the previously employed predictors would yield dif
ferential predictive validities. Ghiselli originally termed
a test used for this purpose a "predictor test." It appears
that the term "moderator measure" is becoming the more com
monly accepted term for such a test, and the characteristics
or qualities measured by the test are termed "moderator v a r i
ables ."
Based on these theoretical considerations, the present
study was designed to investigate the utility of leadership
opinions as direct predictors of leadership effectiveness in
the framework of a traditional prediction model and as m o
derator variables in the framework of a moderator model.
The specific models employed in this study are described in
Chapter III, "Method."
The Relation of Role Theory to the

Historically, the empirical research on predicting lead

ership effectiveness has generally been related to the lead
ership theory which seemed to hold the most promise at the
particular time. The early traitist approach attempted to
explain and predict leadership effectiveness on the basis
of the personal traits of an individual (Stogdill, 1948).
The leadership-style theory attempted to predict leadership
effectiveness based on the type of leadership (autocratic,
democratic, or laissez-faire) displayed by an individual. The
situationist approach stated that leadership was specific and
relative to the particular situation and that to predict lead
ership effectiveness one must consider the interaction of the
leader, the followers, and the specific elements in the p a r
ticular environment. The brief mention of these approaches
certainly does not exhaust the list of the theories of lead
ership which have served as the basis for attempts to predict
leadership effectiveness (see Browne and Cohn, 1958). In con
trast with these theories, the predictors used in this study
were derived from role theory.
A basic concept of role theory is that an organization
is a social system comprised of a complex interrelationship
of variables. From this frame of reference, leadership is
viewed as role behavior which distinguishes leaders from
other members of the organization (Stogdill, 1950). The
theoretical background relating the general concept of social
role to the study of leadership has been discussed in previous
reviews of the literature (Haas, 1964; Stogdill, Scott,
Jaynes, 1956; Stogdill, 1959). These reviews and other r e
lated references are discussed in more detail in Chapter II,
"Survey of Literature and Problem." It is appropriate at
this point, however, to provide a brief discussion of the
concepts of role behavior and role expectations because they
are directly related to the research design employed in this
study.
Role behavior has been defined by Bonner (1959) as "...
a system of actions in response to the set of expectations
established by the group in which we have membership ;p. 4 0 6 j .
The type of role behavior exhibited by a leader is conditioned
not only by his personal traits, but also by the members, the
goals, and the environment (Davis, 1967, p. 100).
The term role expectation refers to the pattern of behav
ior others believe is appropriate for a person occupying a
particular position in the social structure of a group. With
respect to a position of leadership in a formal organization,
the role expectations of the members reflect the pattern of
behavior they consider appropriate for a person performing
the differentiated responsibilities of leadership. In other
words, the role expectations of subordinates indicate what
they think their leader "ought to do" to be effective in his
leadership role.
The specific relationship of the concepts of role behav
ior and role expectations to the research in this study is
discussed in more detail in the section on research design.
Basically, this study investigated the utility of ideal role
expectations (opinions regarding how leaders "ought to act")
as predictors of the leadership effectiveness of an individual
as compared with their use as moderator variables in the m o d
ified prediction model. A review of the relevant research on
the validity of leadership opinions as predictors of leader
ship effectiveness is presented in Chapter XI, "Survey of
Literature and Problem."
Significance of the Problem
The theoretical significance of the problem was indica

ted in the previous discussion of the theoretical background
of the problem. This study makes a contribution to the small
body of empirical research on the utility of moderator models
as compared to classical prediction models. The body of re
search on the use of moderator models for the prediction of
leadership effectiveness is extremely limited. The study
also provides a contribution to the research on the utility of
role expectations for the prediction of leadership effective
ness. As Fiedler (1967) states, the prediction of leadership
effectiveness is one of the major theoretical problems in the
field of leadership research.
From a practical standpoint, the results of this research
m a y provide a basis for improving the selection procedures
currently employed by the United States Air Force Academy.
The Air Force conducts a continuing program of research to
improve the system for selecting cadets for appointment to
the Air Force Academy (see Miller, 1966 and earlier references
cited therein). These research reports summarize the results
of validation studies conducted on the selection and experi
mental test batteries for the classes of 1959 through 1967.
The prediction of academic achievement has reached a generally
acceptable level and the more recent studies have emphasized
experimental batteries for the prediction of the Military R a t
ings of cadets. The Military Rating is an evaluation of the
leadership effectiveness of a cadet.
The importance of seeking to improve the selection sys
tem used by the Air Force Academy can be indicated by citing
two of the more significant benefits to be gained. First,
from an economic standpoint, the citizens of the United States
have an investment of over 2 0 0 million dollars in the physical
facility at the U. S. Air Force Academy and support an annual
net operating expense of more than 40 million dollars (Annual
R e p o r t „ U.S.A.F. Academy, 1967). The maximum return on this
investment can be obtained only if candidates with the most
potential are selected for appointment as cadets. A second
measure, although less quantifiable, is nevertheless of major
importance. The Air Force Academy is the source of a nucleus
of career officers upon which the Air Force and the nation will
rely for the future leadership of a significant portion of our
system of national defense. By 1972, the Air Force Academy
will have a yearly output of approximately 920 graduates
which will constitute 27 per cent of the total input for the
regular line officer structure of the Air Force (Annual R e p o r t .
1967, pp. 53-54). From a practical standpoint, the initial
selection of this group of career officers was a problem of
sufficient importance to justify the research conducted for
this study.
Statement of the Hypotheses

utility of a moderator model as compared to a classical model
for the prediction of the leadership effectiveness of cadets
at the United States Air Force Academy. The secondary pur
pose was to evaluate the utility of leadership role expec
tations as predictors of cadet leadership effectiveness
using the classical prediction model and as moderator vari
ables in the moderator model. The three specific hypotheses
formulated for this study are stated below.
Hypothesis I
The leadership opinion variables, Initiating Structure

(S) and Consideration (C), correlate positively with leader
ship success and increase the predictability of leadership
success above the level of accuracy obtained using only the
standard Academy predictors.
Rationale. A classical prediction model seeks to link
predictors directly with criteria through a simple index of
relationship— the correlation coefficient. The prediction
model employed by the Air Force Academy was based upon a
traditional design employing multiple linear regression
techniques. The evaluation of this hypothesis provided a
measure of the unique contribution to predictive efficiency
made by leadership opinions when used with the previously
validated predictors of leadership effectiveness. The analy
sis also provided a measure of the predictive power of lead
ership opinions relative to the other previously validated
predictors of leadership effectiveness.
•q. r*
Hypothesis II
The use of the leadership opinion variables, Initiating

Structure and Consideration, as moderators identifies sub
groups for whom the standard Academy predictors yield
differential predictive validities.
Rationale. The previous discussion of prediction models
cited evidence that moderator variables are sometimes effective
for identifying subgroups for whom the standard predictor vari
ables would yield differential validities. Hypothesis II was
formulated to evaluate the utility of leadership opinions for
use as moderator variables.
Hypothesis III
The derivation of separate prediction equations for each

subgroup established on the basis of the moderator variables,
Initiating Structure and Consideration, enhances the predic
tive power of the standard Academy predictors when these
equations are used with subgroups upon cross-validation.
Rationale. Some of the previously reported evidence
(Ghiselli, 1963) indicates that moderator variables may be
specific to particular situations and that they may not hold
up on cross-validation. This hypothesis was formulated to
test the generality of the moderators in terms of the two
different samples used in this study.
Additional Questions and Supplemental Research
After the initial hypotheses were formulated, it became

increasingly apparent to this investigator that additional re
search was justified to obtain answers to two additional ques
tions. These questions are stated below along with the rat
ionale indicating their relationship to the basic study.
Question I
Were the two original dimensions of the Leadership Opin
ion Questionnaire, Initiating Structure and Consideration,
10
factorially pure when used with the USAFA^ cadet samples,
and if not, what other meaningful factors would emerge from
a factor analysis? The rationale for Hypothesis I required
the use of the original Leadership Opinion Questionnaire and
scoring key so that the results would be comparable to those
of previous studies employing this questionnaire (See Fleish
man, 1957; Korman, 1966). Since factor analysis was not
used for developing the early version of the Leadership Opin
ion Questionnaire (Fleishman, 1957, p. 124), the investi
gation of the factorial composition of the questionnaire
was especially appropriate. The factor analysis identified
a third factor and indicated the homogeneity of the scales
could be increased by reducing the number of items used for
the Initiating Structure and Consideration dimensions. The
results of the analysis for this question were incorporated
into the analysis conducted to answer the second question.
Question II
Would individuals expressing different leadership
opinions differ on independent measures of personality vari
ables and/or scores obtained on the standard USAFA predictor
and criterion variables? More specifically, would the dif
ferences on selected personality variables provide evidence
of construct vailidity for the Initiating Structure, Consid
eration and Change factors resulting from the factor analy
sis? In relation to the first question, there was a special
interest in possible relationships between those personality
variables which could be expected to yield additional
ÛSAFA is used as the abbreviation for the United

States Air Force Academy.
11
measures of construct validity for the three factors identi
fied by the factor analysis. To facilitate the discussion
of these supplemental questions, a brief description of
method of analysis is presented with the results in Chapter
IV.
This chapter provided a general overview of the purpose
of this study. A more detailed discussion of the background
of the study is presented in Chapter II, "Survey of Liter
ature and Problem."
CHAPTER II
SURVEY OF LITERATURE AND PROBLEM
The two general categories of literature bearing on

the problem are: (1 ) literature concerning classical and
modified prediction models, and, (2 ) literature concerning
the more specific problem of predicting leadership effec
tiveness. There is an abundance of- literature on these gen
eral subjects and much of it has been discussed in pub
lished reviews. In the present survey, the published re
views are referenced wherever possible, and only the most
relevant literature is discussed. The literature on the
specific problem of predicting the leadership effectiveness
of USAF cadets is discussed in the last section of this
chapter.
Prediction Models
This study compared the utility of classical and modi

fied prediction models. Comprehensive discussions of the
theoretical considerations concerning these models are
available in the following references: (Biesheuvel, 1965;
Dunnette, 1963, 1966; Ghiselli, 1960, 1963; Guion, 1967;
12
Porter, 1966). An attempt has been made to summarize the
most important theoretical considerations and to limit the
discussion of the empirical literature to studies closely
related to the design of the present study. Therefore, the
discussion of modified prediction models is limited to a
review of the moderator model.
Traditional Prediction Model
The basic assumptions of the traditional prediction

model derived from classical correlation theory were prev
iously stated.^ These assumptions impose certain restric-
2
tions on the general utility of traditional models.
First, the psychometric data may not meet the assumptions
of linearity and homoscedasticity necessary to employ Pear-
3
sonian coefficients of correlation. Second, the errors of
measurement and prediction may not be equal and random for
all individuals as is assumed by classical psychometric
theory. Thus, the possible contribution interactive ef
fects could make to improving prediction is ignored. Be
cause of the restrictions on the general utility of the tra
ditional model, Guion (1967) stated recently that: "There
is evidence of disenchantment with traditional correlation
^Supra, p . 2.
2
For additional discussion of the points summarized
in this section, see the comments by Dunnette, 1966; Ghis
elli, 1963 and Porter, 1966. Also see Biesheuvel, 1965.,
pp. 296-297; Guion, 1967, pp. 201-202.
3
For arguments concerning the extent and effect of
violations of these assumptions see Guion, 1967, pp. 201-
202 .
14
p. 201 The critics of traditional psychometric meth
ods also argue that a departure from traditional approaches
is needed because prediction has not improved significantly
during the last half century. As an example of this criti
cism, Dunnette (1963, p. 317) cited Clark Hull's (1928)
statement that the upper limit of the validity coeffi
cients for tests at that time was about .50, and also cited
Ghiselli's (1955) more recent comprehensive review of both
published and unpublished studies which showed that at that
time validities were ranging in the .30's and low .40's.
Based on a recent review of the literature, Biesheuvel
(1965) concluded that: "... selection procedures have not
yet appreciably advanced in predictive power beyond the .50
and .60 correlation range around which they have hovered
for so long ip. 295J .M
In summary, this review of the classic prediction m o d
el has indicated some of the restrictions on the general
utility of the model and some of the criticisms concern
ing the lack of significant improvements in the prediction
by relying primarily upon traditional psychometric methods.
These considerations have resulted in attempts to improve
prediction by developing modified models for test valida
tion and personnel selection.
Modified Models: The Moderator Model
A review of various modified prediction models was

beyond the scope of the present study. The rationale
for one proposed model was stated in the previous
15
discussion of the theoretical background of this study.^
That model was suggested originally by Guetzkow and Fore
hand (1961) and later modified by Dunnette (1963) .
The model attempts to overcome the limitations of the
classic prediction model by taking account of the, " . . .
complex interactions which may occur between predictors
and various predictor combinations, different groups (or
types) of these behaviors relative to the goals of the or
ganization [kobart and Dunnette, 1967, p. 50 j." The gen
eral implication of most modified models is that prediction
can be enhanced by determining the interactions between
these factors for homogeneous subsets of individuals. Var
ious methods have been suggested for identifying these sub
groups. One of the methods which seems to be receiving in
creasing attention is the moderator variable approach
(Porter, 1966, p. 395). Guion recently referred to modera
tor designs as: "One popular departure which may in fact
r~ -
be a return to sound practice; . . .Ip. 202;." Since a

moderator design was employed in this study, some addi
tional discussion of moderator models is appropriate.
Definition of moderator variable. Moderator vari
ables have been given a variety of names by different in
vestigators. Terms such as "interaction variable," "ref
erent variable," and "predictability variable" have been
used in place of the term "moderator variable" originally
introduced by Saunders (1956). The term moderator vari
able has been applied to a variety of variables which have
been used for sorting individuals into homogeneous
Supra, p . 2
16
subgroups. Based on a survey of the literature on moder

ator variables, Banas (1964) proposed that the term moder
ator variable be designated as:
The general term to refer to all variables, quan
titative or qualitative, which improve the useful
ness of a predictor by isolating subgroups of in
dividuals for whom a predictor or set of regres
sion weights are especially appropriate.
This definition is used for the present study and,

where the leadership opinion variables are used to identify
homogeneous subgroups, these variables are designated as
moderator variables.
Theoretical Considerations
An integrated theory for the moderator model has not

yet been developed. In contrast to the basic assumptions
of classical psychometric theory previously discussed, a
basic assumption underlying the moderator model is that
predictive accuracy can be enhanced by using moderator var
iables to identify homogeneous subgroups of individuals.
The empirical evidence generally supports this assumption.
However, as yet an adequate theoretical framework does not
exist for guiding the researcher and practitioner in deter
mining which variables might serve as appropriate modera
tors in specific prediction situations. As Porter stated
in 1966, MTo date, however, moderator variables have been
identified chiefly on a trial and error basis ,'p. 395
Some of the major contributors to the body of empirical evi
dence obtained from utilizing moderator models have com
mented on the inadequacy of the theory for isolating
17
moderator variables. Hobart and Dunnette (1967), in report
ing the successful use of moderator variables to enhance
the prediction of managerial effectiveness, stated; "What
is less clear is how to find or develop these moderators
jp. 5 2 ‘." Ghiselli (1964) has also noted that although
significant empirical results have been obtained using
moderator models, there is a lack of a solid theoretical
foundation for the model.
In formulating the present study, the investigator
attempted to select the experimental moderator variables
on a rational basis rather than by using trial and error
methods. Because of the logical relationship between lead
ership role expectations and leadership role behavior, it
was determined to compare the utility of leadership role
expectations as predictors in the usual sense with their
utility as experimental moderator variables in a moderator
model. Further discussion of the relationship between
leadership role expectations and the prediction of leader
ship success is provided in a later section of this chapter.
Empirical Research
Moderator models have been employed in a wide variety

of research settings, a number of different variables have
been used as moderators, and several different methods of
distinguishing homogeneous subgroups have been explored.
The interested reader xîll find comprehensive surveys of
5
these studies in the published reviews previously cited.
^ See s u p r a , p. 12, and the additional references

cited in this chapter. ' -
18
A summary of the general findings of these studies is pro
vided in this review, but the discussion of specific
studies is limited to those directly related to either the
problem, method, or research setting of the present study.
Several criteria may be used to evaluate the results
of empirical research employing subgrouping methods. One
general criterion is the attainment of validities for one
or more subgroups which are higher than those previously
obtained for the total group. A more stringent criterion
would require that the average validities for the subgroups
be higher than those obtained for the total group with
traditional methods. Also, one must consider whether to
claim significant results on the basis of concurrent vali
dity alone or to require that predictive validity be em
pirically demonstrated. Finally, another criterion would
be whether initial findings "hold-up" on cross-validation.
From the standpoint of practical utility, one must con
sider the cost-effectiveness criterion before adopting more
complex prediction models. The results of the studies re
viewed in this survey of the literature were evaluated in
terms of these general criteria. Also, an attempt was
made to determine if a consistent pattern would emerge
from comparing the results of similar studies.
In general, some very significant results have been
obtained by using moderator models in place of the standard
prediction models previously employed. However, the evi
dence also indicates that many of the studies failed to
yield significant results, and that the majority of the
results would not be considered significant on the basis
19
of the more stringent theorc cal and practical criteria
cited previously. Some of .e general findings related to
the design of the preser . nudy are summarized below, and
some specific references ^re provided for interested re
searchers .
1. Some results showed that the correlations between
scores on the moderator variable(s) and scores on the pre
dictor (s) and criterion were quite low (Ghiselli, 1963,
p. 84). Thus, the moderator variable would not be expected
to make a significant contribution to prediction if used
in a traditional correlational model. The contribution of
such variables in the context of a moderator model— i s T ^
therefore, unique. /
Based on these findings, the present study-^wa's^de—
signed to compare the utility of leadership role expecta
tions as standard predictors and as experimental moderator
variables for the prediction of leadership effectiveness
(Hypotheses I and II). The results of this comparison are
presented in Chapter IV.
2. Some results showed that moderator variables are
specific and may not ''hold-up" in cross-validation (Ghis
elli, 1963, p. 84). .After reviewing Ketchum's study which
found that a comparison of three methods of prediction
yielded about equal results in cross-validation, Guion
(1967) concluded that: "This seems to be characteristic
of studies that set out to compare traditional and M o d
e rator1 models of prediction jp. 204;."
For the present study, Hypothesis III was formulated
to determine the generality of leadership role expectations
as moderators by using a double cross-validation design.
20
This study compared the utility of traditional and

moderator models for the prediction of leadership effec
tiveness. Role expectations of how ideal leaders ought
to act were used as the experimental predictor variables
in the traditional prediction model and as the experimen
tal moderator variables in the moderator model. Some of
the theoretical background and empirical research con
cerning role theory and the prediction of leadership
effectiveness was discussed in Chapter I. There is a
large body of literature concerning leadership, role the
ory, and the prediction of leadership effectiveness and
only the most relevant literature is discussed here. Pub
lished references and reviews of the literature on these
subjects are cited wherever possible to avoid unnecessary
repetition in this review.
General discussions of leadership and the prediction
of leadership effectiveness are available elsewhere
(Bass, 1960; Browne and Cohn, 1958; Fiedler, 1967; Goode,
1951; Gouldner, 1950; Harrell, 1961; Shartle, 1956; Stog-
dill, 1948, 1959; Tannenbaum, Weschler, and Massarick,
1961).
In relation to the military setting in which this
study was conducted, some general discussions and reviews
of the literature on military leadership are cited for the
interested researcher (Carter, 1952; Jenkins, 1947; Lang,
1965; Uhlaner, 1967).
21 1
A brief general summary of role theory as related to
the study of leadership is provided by Davis (1967). More
comprehensive discussions and reviews of the literature on
this subject are available from other sources (Bonner,
1959; Gross, Mason, and M c E a c h e m , 1958; Haas, 1964; M e r
ton, 1957; Sarbin, 1954; Stogdill, 1956, 1959; Stogdill,
Scott, and Jaynes, 1956). Reviews of studies on role the-
ory as related to leadership in military organizations
are provided in other sources (Bowers, 1962; Mitchell and
Porter, 1967; Lang, 1965).
The present study used leadership opinions as experi
mental predictors and moderators in the prediction of lead-
ership effectiveness. A large number of studies have been
conducted using leadership opinions, or attitudes, as pre
dictors of leadership success in traditional prediction
models. Most of these studies are reviewed in the refer
ences previously cited. For the present study, the leader
ship opinions regarding ideal leadership role behavior
were assessed with the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire
(Appendix A) which was a modification of the Leadership
Behavior Description Questionnaire. Both of these ques
tionnaires were originally developed at The Ohio State U n i
versity as instruments for The Ohio State Leadership stud
ies. These instruments have been used in a wide variety
of research settings and a large number of studies have
been conducted on leadership in military organizations
using both the original and more recent forms of the ques
tionnaires. The results of many of these studies have been
published by The Ohio State University Bureau of Business
Research and these monographs are cited in the list of
references. A discussion of these studies is not pres
ented in this review since Korman (1966) has recently pub
lished a review of these and other studies conducted by
independent researchers. Reviews of the form of the
Leadership Opinion Questionnaire by Fleishman (1960) are
also readily available (Buros, 1965). Some relevant stud
ies not covered in the reviews cited are described here.
The two dimensions of the early form of the Leadership
Opinion Questionnaire, Initiating Structure and Consider
ation, are defined in Chapter III. The concepts repre
sented by these variables are similar to other concepts
such as production orientation and employee orientation
(see Bowers and Seashore, 1967, for comparisons with other
related concepts used for describing leadership behavior.
In general, the results of previous validity studies
using the Initiating Structure and Consideration variables
showed relatively low to moderate correlations between
these variables and independent measures of leadership
effectiveness. Although a few statistically significant
correlations have been obtained in previous studies, al
most all of the studies were limited to concurrent mea
sures of validity rather than the predictive validity
measure used in the present study. All of the studies on
predicting leadership effectiveness employing these vari
ables used traditional prediction designs. This reviewer
found only one study (Beer, 1966) where the Initiating
Structure and Consideration variables were used as m o d
erators, but that study was not directly concerned with
23
the prediction of leadership effectiveness. Beer’s study
found that interactive effects between employee needs,
motivation, and the Initiating Structure and Consideration
variables were isolated by using the latter variables as
moderators in a moderator model design similar to the one
used in this study.
Some of the studies not included in the previously
cited reviews of the literature are related to the design
and/or the research setting of the present study. For ex
ample, Hess (1959) studies the perceptions of ideal and
actual leadership behavior of military officers and civil
ians in the Air Materiel Command, U. S. Air Force. The
results showed that the leadership opinion variables, Ini
tiating Structure and Consideration, were effective in
differentiating between successful and unsuccessful lead
ership patterns. Holloman (1967) conducted a similar
study on the perceived leadership role of military and
civilian supervisors at one of the larger Air Force bases.
Holloman's results showed that the military and civilian
supervisors and their subordinates expressed significantly
different role expectations as measured by the leadership
opinion variables. Newport (1962) studied the attitudes
and perceived leadership behavior of Air Force ROTC cadets
and found that cadets who scored high on both the Initia
ting Structure and Consideration dimensions received higher
ratings on the criterion of leadership effectiveness.
Capelle (1966) investigated the leadership opinions of rec
ognized student leaders versus non-leaders at a civilian
24
university and found that the successful leaders had sig
nificantly higher scores on both the Initiating Structure
and Consideration opinion variables than did the non-lead
ers .
In summary, the two basic dimensions of the Leadership
Opinion Questionnaire, Initiating Structure and Considera
tion, have been used in a wide variety of civilian and
military research settings and some significant results
were obtained using these variables for the prediction of
leadership effectiveness in traditional prediction models.
No studies were found that used these variables as modera
tors in the prediction of leadership effectiveness in the
framework of a moderator model. Therefore, the present
study was designed to compare the utility of the leadership
opinion variables as predictors of leadership effectiveness
in a traditional prediction model with their use as experi
mental moderator variables in a moderator prediction model.
Prediction of Leadership Effectiveness at

the Air Force Academy
As discussed in Chapter I. the Air Force conducts a

continuing program of research to improve the system for
selecting cadets for appointment to the USAF Academy. The
results of these validation studies have been presented in
a series of published reports for the Classes of 1959
through 1967 (Christal and Krumboltz, 1957; Creager and
Miller, 1960; Creager and Miller, 1961; Krumboltz and
Christal, 1957; Miller, 1960a, Miller, 1960b; Miller, 1961,
Miller, 1964a; Miller, 1964b; Miller, 1965; Miller, 1966;
Miller and Creager, 1960). All of these studies used the
standard USAF Academy selection variables described in
Chapter III and other experimental tests in traditional
correlational and multiple linear regression models. In
addition to the criteria of leadership effectiveness and
academic achievement used in the early studies, the pre
diction of a third criteria has been investigated in the
more recent studies. This criterion is referred to as
Early Motivational Elimination and is a dichotomous vari
able scored 1 for retention versus 0 if a cadet voluntarily
resigns from the Academy during his freshman year. As
previously noted, the prediction of academic achievement
2
has reached a generally high level of accuracy (R 's <.40)
and the more recent experimental research has been designed
to improve the prediction of the criterion of leadership
effectiveness. The standard leadership predictors gen-
2
erally yield R 1s of about .20. The various experimental
tests are usually administered to cadets upon their arrival
at the USAF Academy. These experimental tests have inclu
ded various standardized measures of personality traits
and other instruments developed from the previous research
studies. These experimental instruments (see Miller, 1966)
include measures of attitudes, demographic variables, and
achievement on performance tests of abilities.
The review of the results obtained from these experi
mental tests showed that most of them do not make a consis
tent and unique contribution to the prediction of leader
ship effectiveness. Both the standard USAF Academy
26
predictors and the experimental predictors have been used

only in traditional prediction models. Some of the re
sults for the experimental variables were significant and
showed, for example, that personality traits (Miller,
1966; Tupes and Christal 1961; Tupes and Kaplan, 1961),
physical proficiency (Krumboltz, 1957); biographical items
(Miller, 1966) made unique and valid contributions to a c
counting for variance in the leadership criterion not a c
counted for by the standard predictor variables. Again,
these studies were all based on traditional prediction
m o dels.
One study conducted by an independent investigator
(Brown, 1965) using biographical data as a moderator to
identify subgroups for whom the standard USAF Academy pre
dictors of academic achievement were differentially effec
tive in predicting the first-year Grade Point Average of
the freshman class of cadets. Another study (Brown, 1968)
used scores on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
as moderators and some statistically significant differ
ences between validity coefficients for the standard pre
dictors moderated subgroups were obtained in prediction
of the leadership criterion. However, this study did not
provide a complete replication of the standard prediction
model used by the USAF Academy and, therefore, did not
provide a complete comparison of the differential utility
of the standard versus the moderator model. From personal
interviews with the researchers conducting the experimental
test program, and from the review of the literature conduc
ted for this study, the investigator concluded that, with
the exception of Brown’s study, no other studies had been
conducted to investigate the utility of a moderator model
in comparison with the standard prediction and selection
model used by the USAF Academy. The investigator can
firmly state the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire variables,
Initiating Structure and Consideration, have not been used
as either experimental predictors or as moderator variab
les in any of the previous research on prediction of the
leadership effectiveness of USAF Academy cadets. Thus,
because no other comparable studies had been conducted,
this study used two independent samples from different
cadet classes (freshman and sophomore) and a double
cross-validation design was employed (Hypothesis III)
to provide a more powerful measure of the validity of
the results obtained from the initial comparison of the
traditional prediction model (Hypothesis I) and the m o d
erator model (Hypothesis I I ) . Further discussion of the
rationale for the design of this study is presented in
the following chapter on methodology.
CHAPTER III
METHOD
The Research Setting and Samples
This study investigated the utility of using leadership

opinions for predicting the leadership effectiveness of cadets
at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). The subjects
were obtained from a random sample of cadets taking two re
quired courses in psychology (see Moorman, 1967, p. 33).
The sample from the class of 1969 (sophomore) consisted
of approximately 300 of the 810 cadets remaining in that class.
Upon entering the Academy, there were 1035 cadets in this
class who had been selected from the group of 4709 candidates.
The sample from the class of 1970 (freshman) consisted
of approximately 300 of the 904 cadets remaining in that class.
Upon entering the Academy, there were 1030 cadets in this
class who had been selected from the group of 3728 candidates.
The proportion of candidates selected provides a conser
vative selection ratio because applicants and potential ap
plicants lacking the physical qualifications or academic back
grounds necessary to qualify for candidacy are not included in
these figures.
The Variables and Methods for Collecting Data
The three major categories of data required for the

present study were: (1) a measure of the leadership opinions
28
29
of the subjects; (2 ) the subjects' scores on the previously
validated predictors used in the present Academy selection
model; and (3) an independent measure of the leadership ef
fectiveness of the subjects. Data required to answer the two
additional questions were obtained from a factor analysis
(Question I) and from data available for the Edwards Per
sonal Preference Schedule (Question II). The method used for
collecting the data in the three major categories and a des
cription of the variables in each category are provided be
low. Because descriptions of the Edwards Personal Prefer
ence Schedule are readily available elsewhere (Buros, 1965,
pp. 190-207), and this instrument was used only for the sup
plementary research, the brief description of the instrument
and method of analysis will be presented with the results in
Chapter IV. The EPPS was administered to part of the sample
(N = 241) from the Class of 1970 upon their arrival at the
Air Force Academy.
Leadership Opinions
The Ohio State Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (see

Appendix A) was used to assess leadership opinions. The two
factors, or independent dimensions, of leadership attitudes
measured by the questionnaire, Initiating Structure and Con
sideration, have been defined as follows (Fleishman, 1963,
p. 3):
Initiating Structure. Reflects the extent to which
an individual is likely to define and structure
his own role and those of subordinates toward goal
attainment. A high score on this dimension char
acterizes individuals who play a more active role
in directing group activities through planning,
communicating information, scheduling, criticizing,
trying out new ideas, etc.
Consideration. Reflects the extent to which an
individual is likely to have job relationships
characterized by mutual trust, respect for sub
ordinates' ideas, consideration for their feel
ings, and a certain warmth between supervisor
and subordinates. A high score is indicative
of a climate of good rapport and two-way com
munication. A low score indicates the super
visor is likely to be more impersonal in his
relations with group members.
Cadets were asked to complete the questionnaire by des

cribing Mhow an ideal Air Force supervisor or leader ought to
act." The scores on the two dimensions, Initiating Structure
and Consideration, provided an estimate of the cadet s 1 expec
tations concerning ideal role behavior for those in super
visory or leadership positions in the Air Force.
To provide better rapport and control during the data col
lection process, the questionnaire was administered to the
small classes (N = 17) in the normal classroom setting. To
prevent exposure to the subject matter in these psychology
courses from possibly biasing the responses, the questionnaire
was administered at the beginning of the courses. The subjects
were assured that the responses would remain confidential and
that the results would be used for research purposes only.
This assurance,' plus the instruction that there were no right
or wrong answers, and the statement that feedback on the over
all results would be provided at a later date was sufficient
to obtain the willing cooperation of the subjects.
Estimates of internal consistency and test-retest relia
bility of the scales reported for previous studies were ade
quate for relatively short scales (Fleishman, 1957, pp. 124-
125). These studies also reported that the two dimensions,
Initiating Structure and Consideration, were generally unre
lated. The reliability or internal consistency of the scales
31
was computed on the present samples by means of two measures:
Cronbach's alpha, which has been defined as the mean of all
split-half coefficients resulting from different splittings
of a test (Cronbach, 1951, p. 297), and Scott's homogeneity
ratio (Scott and Wertheimer, 1962), which is roughly analo
gous to the average interitem correlation and may be defined
as the degree to which each item on the rating scale yields
the same classification of the person. Scott's homogeneity
ratio was used as a measure of internal consistency because,
unlike traditional measures of reliability, it is unaffec
ted by scale length. Thus, when a factor analysis makes it
possible to shorten the scales, the internal consistency m e a
sure is not automatically attenuated as a function of the r e
duced number of items on the factor derived scales. Due to
the design of this study, the homogeneity ratio was more a p
propriate than traditional measures of internal consistency.
The results of these measures (Tables 1 and 2) indicated that
reliability, although not exceptionally high, was adequate
for short scales. Tables 1 and 2 also show that the Ini
tiating Structure and Consideration dimensions were inde
pendent or had a slightly negative relationship.
The review of previous validity studies presented in Chap
ter II indicated relatively low validities, although a few
statistically significant correlations were reported. Almost
all of the studies were limited to concurrent measures of
validity. This study was designed to provide a measure of
the predictive validity of the scales. Therefore, the ques
tionnaire was completed approximately five months prior’ to
obtaining evaluations of the leadership effectiveness of the
cadets (Military Ratings).
32
TABLE 1
RAW S C O R E M E A N S , S T A N D A R D D E V IA T IO N S , R E L I A B I L I T I E S ,
A N D I N T E R C O R R E L A T I O N OF T H E D I M E N S I O N S C O R E S IN T H E
L E A D E R S H I P OPIN ION Q U E S T I O N N A I R E ( C l a s s of 1969, N = 28 8)
11
M easure i D im ension
i Initiating Stru ctu re C onsideration
i
i
i
N u m b e r of i t e m s ! 20 20
1
M eana : 50.7 49. 9
Standard deviation j 6.2 6. 1
R eliability^ j .70 . 63
o
00
H om ogeneity ratio0 . 11
Intercor relation — . 17
a A l t e r n a t i v e r e s p o n s e s f o r e a c h i t e m w e r e w e i g h t e d z e r o to
four.
■L
R e l i a b i l i t y w a s m e a s u r e d by C r o n b a c h ' s a l p h a .
c H om ogeneity ratio is a w e i g h t e d a v e r a g e i n t e r i t e m c o r r e l a
tion.
33
TABLE 2
RAW S C O R E M E A N S, S T A N D A R D D E V IA T IO N S , R E L I A B I L I T I E S ,
A N D I N T E R C O R R E L A T I O N OF TH E DIM ENSION S C O R E S IN T H E
L E A D E R S H I P OPI NI ON Q U E S T I O N N A I R E ( C l a s s of 1970, N = 304)
D im ension
Me a sure
Initiating Structure: C o n s id e r a tio n
N u m b e r of I t e m s 20 20
M eana 52. 9 49. 7
Standard D eviation 6.2 6. 4
R eliability^ .70 • 65
H om ogeneity R atio0 . 10 • 09
Inter cor rela tio n -.0 3
A l t e r n a t i v e r e s p o n s e s f o r e a c h i t e m w e r e w e i g h t e d z e r o to f o u r .
. R e l i a b i l i t y w a s m e a s u r e d by C r o n b a c h ' s a l p h a .
c H om ogeneity ratio i s a w e i g h t e d a v e r a g e i n t e r i t e m c o r r e l a t i o n .
USAF Academy Selection Data
As a result of the extensive research previously cited

(see Miller, 1966), the Air Force Academy has been using a
battery of selection tests which have predictive validity
in terms of the academic and leadership criteria. Descrip
tions of the components of the selection battery are provi
ded below:
Academic Composite. This composite was derived from
the unweighted sum of the four College Entrance Examination
Board tests and Prior Academic Achievement. It has been a
good predictor of overall grade point average (USAF Academy,
ACD-T3, p. 29).
College Entrance Examination Board Tests (CEEB Tests}
These four tests were the verbal aptitude and English com
position tests and the mathematics aptitude and achievement
tests.
Prior Academic Record. This measure was a standard
score scale reflecting the candidate’s rank in his high
school graduating class, with adjustments for the size of
the school and for any college or preparatory school work
completed.
Leadership Composite. This index was derived from the
unweighted sum of the physical aptitude examination score,
the athletic activity index, and the non-athletic activity
index. The scores shown in Table 3 reflect the restriction
of range on this measure for the cadet classes in compari
son to the candidates. This composite has been a fair pre
dictor of leadership ratings (USAF Academy, ACD-T3, p. 30).
Physical Aptitude Examination. This test provided a
measure of physical strength, coordination, agility, and gen
eral physical condition. It was administered individually
TABLE 3 35
L E A D E R S H I P C O M P O S I T E SC O R E S, P E R C E N T OF C A N D I D A T E S A N D
C A D E T S E X C E E D I N G G IV E N S C O R E S , C L A S S E S O F 1969 A N D 1970. a
L ead ersh ip C om posite Score P er Cents E x ce ed in g S core

Candidates Cadets
C l a s s of 1969
2200 0.2 0.4

2050 1 2
19 00 6 12
1750 16 30
1600 35 53
1450 61 79
1300 82 94
1150 94 100
C l a s s of 1970
2200 0.1 0 .4
2050 1 3
1900 5 9
1750 16 29
1600 34 53
1450 60 79
1300 83 96
1150 95 100
Source: U . S . A i r F o r c e A c a d e m y S e l e c t i o n Data, R C S - A C D - T 3 .
a C l a s s of 1969, c a n d i d a t e N = 4 7 0 9 , c a d e t N = 1035; C l a s s of
1970, c a n d i d a t e N = 3728, c a d e t N = 1 030.
36
under standardized conditions and was independent of the
medical examination.
Athletic Activity Index. This index was based on par
ticipation and achievement in high school sports. It was
adjusted for the size of the high school class.
Non-Athletic Activity Index. This was a measure of the
degree to which candidates occupied positions of responsi
bility and leadership in high school. Included were such
measures as participation in extracurricular activities and
the holding of offices in organized activities. This index
was adjusted for size of high school class.
The Criterion Variable. The two most important measures
of the achievement of cadets at the Air Force Academy were the
Military Rating (MR) and the Grade Point Average (GPA). For
the purpose of this study, the criterion used was the indepen
dent measure of leadership effectiveness provided by the M i l i
tary Rating. The M R was a composite of three different rat
ings made by: peers in the cadet*s own academic class, (2 )
upperclassmen in the cadet's chain of command; and (3) the
Air Officer Commanding (AOC) responsible for the cadet's mili
tary training. Inspection of the component ratings indicated
an acceptable level of inter-rater agreement. The initial
rating and ranking was done within each squadron, converted
to percentile ranks, from which a standard score rating was
derived for each cadet. The composite standard score for a
cadet reflected his relative standing in comparison with all
other members of his class. As noted, the composite score
was used as the leadership criterion measure for this study.
The Military Ratings of the subjects were obtained
37
approximately five months after they had completed the Lead
ership Opinion Questionnaire.
The Military Rating scores for cadets were confidential
and classified for "official use only." Through the coopera
tion of the Director of Cadet Records, Office of the Registrar,
USAF Academy, the scores were made available for use in this
study.
Analysis of Data^
The standard predictor variables used by the Air Force

Academy were described during the discussion of the Academy
selection process. Only the Leadership Composite was used
for most of the analysis conducted for this study. This was
appropriate because the scope of the study was limited to an
evaluation of the prediction of leadership effectiveness and
the academic predictor variables were not directly relevant.
It was also considered more appropriate to use the Leadership
Composite rather than the three variables of which it is com
prised. This was done to further reduce the number of inde
pendent variables employed in the analysis. The larger the
number of variables used in a regression or prediction model,
and the smaller.the size of the samples, the greater the prob
ability of chance factors biasing the results (see Snedecor,
1956, pp. 434-435; Thorndike, 1949, p. 203). Subgrouping on
the basis of the moderator measures divided the two large
■^Common statistical procedures and formulas used in the

analysis have not been described because they are covered in
standard references on statistical methods.
38
samples (N = 300 each) into relatively small subgroups (N =
20 to 100). Use of the Leadership Composite provided a method
of minimizing the possible influence of chance factors during
the regression analysis and cross-validation phases of the
study.
For purposes of comparison, the results of regression
2
analyses employing all of the academic and leadership p r e
dictors are presented in conjunction with the evaluation of
Hypothesis I. Examination of the validity coefficients and
comparison of the R 's obtained with the full versus the
restricted set of predictors indicated that some of the aca
demic predictors made a slight contribution to the prediction
of leadership effectiveness (see Tables 4 through 8 ).
Hypothesis I
The leadership opinion variables, Initiating Structure

and Consideration, correlate positively x-/ith leadership success
and increase the predictability of leadership success above
the level of accuracy obtained using only the standard A c a
demy predictors.
Analysis. Pearson product moment correlations between

the leadership opinion variables and the Military Rating were
3
computed for both samples. The data were scatterplotted and
the plots examined to determine that the assumption of lin
earity was met. Four separate multiple linear regression analy
ses were conducted for each sample. The first set of regression
2
The BMD02R computer program was used for the regression
analysis. See Dixon, 1964 for a description of the program.
3
The BMD02D program was used for these computations; see
Dixon, 1964.
39
analyses employed the full set of the standard Academy predic
tor variables. The second set employed only the Leadership
Composite as the standard predictor of the Military Rating,
Each set contained a regression analysis performed without
the leadership opinion variables, and one in which these vari
ables were allowed to enter the regression equation if the
specified F-level (.01) for inclusion was met. The correla
tions were tested for significance using a one-tailed test.
The squared multiple validity coefficients for each set of re-
Zj.
gression analyses were compared. For the contribution of one
or both of the leadership opinion variables to be considered
2
significant, the difference between the R 's was required to
be significant at the .05 level. It should be noted that no
attempt was made to estimate the unrestricted correlations by
correcting for the restriction of range present in the cadet
sample in comparison with the total candidate population. The
assumptions necessary to apply such a correction were not met
due to the complexity of the criteria used in the Air Force
Academy selection process (Miller, 1966, p . 5; Thorndike, 1949,
pp. 169-176). / ■ \ .
5 ; ■ : , „ ,. „ . fRa - Rh U N -Ma - 1
The formula used for computing F ---- j 1 --- — T Z
\ Ra / \ ia ” b
where R a = the squared multiple validity of the full set of
v a r ia b l e s ,
o
Rb = the squared multiple validity of the subset,
Ma = the number of predictors in the full set,
Mb = the number of predictors in the subset,
and N = the sample size.
The table of F is entered with M a - Mb and N - M a - 1
degrees of freedom.
F or further information on this statistical procedure
see Bottenberg and Ward, 1963.
40.
Hypothesis XI
The use of the leadership opinion variables, Initiating

Structure and Consideration, as moderators identifies sub
groups for whom the standard Academy predictors yield differ
ential predictive validities.
Analysis. The relative moderating efficiency of several
subgrouping methods was explored during the initial evaluation
of this hypothesis. The results of the three different methods
reported here are generally representative of the results ob
tained from the various methods. The first method established
homogeneous subgroups based on low, moderate, or high scores
on each of the leadership opinion variables. The second
method designated low versus high subgroups based on the scores
on each of the leadership opinion dimensions. The third method
used combinations of scores on both of the leadership opinion
variables. These subgroups were established on the basis of
the standard deviations of the scores. For example, subjects
who obtained scores greater than one standard deviation below
the standard score mean on both the Initiating Structure and
the Consideration variables were classified as the "below - 1
s. d." group.
Two methods of analysis were employed for the first two
methods of subgrouping. First, the hypothesis of significant
differences between the correlations of the Leadership Com
posite and the Military Rating for the extreme subgroups was
tested. All r.Ts were transformed to Fisher jz scores and
two-tailed tests of the differences between independent cor
relations were conducted. The second method of analysis used
t_ tests (two-tailed) to determine if there were significant
differences between the means of the extreme groups on the pre
dictor variable, and on the criterion variable. In addition,
41
the data were examined for evidence of trends within each
sample and for the consistency of patterns across both
samples. For the analysis of the "combination '1 subgroups,
only t tests were employed and a brief comment on the use
of one-tailed tests for these groups is appropriate at this
point. In discussing the theoretical background and prev
ious research employing the Leadership Opinion Question
naire, it was noted that the two dimensions are not m u
tually exclusive and that different combinations of scores
on these dimensions were related to differentiated ratings
on independent measures of leadership effectiveness. As an
example of the results of such research using Air Force sam
ples, Halpin (1957) reported that aircraft commanders who were
high on both dimensions received significantly higher ratings
on various criteria of leadership effectiveness. The same
general finding was reported by Newport (1962) in a study
using Air Force ROTC cadets. Because these findings and the
results of other research previously discussed provided some
basis for predicting the direction of the differences between
the means, a one-tailed test was employed.
Hypothesis III
The derivation of separate prediction equations for each

subgroup established on the basis of the moderator variables,
Initiating Structure and Consideration, enhances the predic
tive power of the standard Academy predictors when these
equations are used with equivalent subgroups upon cross-vali
dation.
Analysis. Separate prediction equations were derived
from the multiple linear regression analyses performed for
each of the subgroups established on the basis of the two
42
moderator variables. The two methods of subgrouping were:
low, moderate, and high scores on each of the variables; and
low versus high scores on each of the variables. Using a
double cross-validation design, the equations derived from
the subgroups from one sample were used to predict the cri
terion attainment of the subjects from equivalent subgroups
in the other sample.
To provide a statistical test of the hypothesis, Pear
son product moment correlations between the predicted and
actual Military Ratings were computed for each subgroup.
The data were scatterplotted and the plots examined to de
termine that the assumptions for using this statistic were
met. The correlation coefficients for the subgroups were
examined for indications of moderating effects as reflected
by the trends of the correlations within each sample, and by
the consistency of the patterns across the two independent
samples. Where differential predictability was indicated
between subgroups from the same sample, the significance of
the difference between the correlations was tested using a
two-tailed test.
The method of analysis for the two additional ques
tions is described in Chapter IV, "Results and Discussion."
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results for the three hypotheses and two addi

tional questions are presented in this chapter^. Some of
the factors considered by the investigator in interpreting
the results are discussed before a summary of the findings
for each hypothesis or question is presented. The various
criteria used in evaluating the results of studies employ
ing moderator prediction models were reviewed in Chapter
II. For the present study, differences between the means
or correlations of the various moderated subgroups were
first tested using the .05 level as a criterion of statis
tical significance. Second, the data were examined for
evidence of differential predictive validities between mod
erated subgroups as reflected by consistent trends of dif
ferences between means or correlations. Third, from a
practical standpoint, the results were evaluated in terms
of whether the use of the experimental moderator variables
enhanced the level of predictive validity of one or more
of the moderated subgroups above that obtained using the
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all probability levels
refer to two-tailed tests of significance. When appro
priate, t values were adjusted for unequal variances.
43
44
standard USAF Academy predictor variables in a traditional
prediction model.
Hypothesis I
The leadership opinion variables, Initiating Struc

ture and Consideration, correlate positively with leader
ship success and increase the predictability of leadership
success above the level of accuracy obtained using only
the standard U. S. Air Force Academy predictor variables.
Results
The data used for this analysis were the Pearson pro
duct moment correlations between the leadership opinion
variables and the Military Ratings and the multiple cor
relation coefficients obtained from separate regression
analyses which first included and then excluded the lead
ership opinion variables. Tables 4 and 5 present the data
for the Class of 1969. None of the Pearson product moment
correlations between the leadership opinion variables and
the criterion are significantly greater than zero (.05
level, one-tailed test). The differences between the
2
R 's obtained from the two separate regression analyses
were not statistically significant (Table 6). The Ini
tiating Structure and Consideration variables did not enter
the regression equation until the seventh and sixth steps,
respectively, and provided only a slight and obviously
2
nonsignificant increase in the R . Tables 7 and 8 present
45
TABLE 4
VALIDITIES AND COMPARISON OF M U L T I P L E CO RRELATI ON

C O E F F I C IE N T S O B T A IN E D FROM REGRESSION A N A L Y S E S AGAINST
THE MILITA RY RATING, EXCLUDING VERSUS INCLUDING THE
E X P E R I M E N T A L P RE DICTO RS {"S" and "C"), CLASS OF 1969, N = 2 8 8 .
P redictor ; V aliditya ’ ^ R eg ressio n A nalysis

A gainst M ilitary
Rating
i A B
L e a d e r s h ip Opinions
ij
Initiating Stru ctu re j ____ c
. 075
c
C onsideration . 091
A cadem y P red ictors ’

A c a d e m i c G ro up
P rior A cad em ic R ecord I . 134

V e r b a l A p t it u d e ] -.0 3 3
E nglish C om position ! . 0 16
Math Aptitude • . 028
M ath A c h i e v e m e n t . 029
L e a d e r s h i p G rou p
P h y s i c a l A p t it u d e E x a m . 153
A th letic A c tiv ity Index . 196
N o n -a th le tic A c tiv ity Index . ■ .356
R2 . 17 15 . 1748
R .4142 .4180
F Ratio 7 . 30 5. 93
p <r . 00 1 . 00 1
a T h e v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t i s the P e a r s o n p r o d u c t m o m e n t c o r r e l a t i o n
b e t w e e n the p r e d i c t o r s and the m i l i t a r y r a t i n g .
M in im u m r for p = .0 5 is . 1 1 3 w h en N = 300.
M i n i m u m r f o r p = .-0 1 i s . 148 w h e n N = 3 0 0 .
c D a s h e s i n d i c a t e v a r i a b l e s w e r e o m i t t e d f r o m the r e g r e s s i o n
analysis.
TABLE 5
46
VALIDITIES AND COMPARISON OF M U L T I P L E COR R E LA T IO N
C O E F FIC IE N T S O BT A IN E D FROM REGRESSION A N A L Y SE S AGAINST
T H E M I L I T A R Y R A T IN G , E X C L U D I N G V E R S U S I N C L U D I N G T H E
E X P E R I M E N T A L P R E D I C T O R S ("S" an d "C") CL A SS O F 1969 ( N = 2 8 8 )
R eg r e ssio n A nalysis
P red ictor V a l i d i t y a'k A g a in s t M ilita r y Rating
C D
L e a d e r sh ip opinions
c
Initiating str u c tu r e . 075
c
C onsideration . 092
A cadem y predictor ■
L eadership com posite . 362
R2 . 1308 .1373
R . 3617 . 3705
F ratio 43. 05 15.07
P < > . 001 .001
a T h e v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t i s the P e a r s o n p r o d u c t m o m e n t c o r r e l a
t io n b e t w e e n the p r e d i c t o r s and the m i l i t a r y r a t i n g .
k M i n i m u m r f o r p = . 05 i s . 1 1 3 w h e n N = 300 .
M i n i m u m r f o r p = . 0 1 i s . 148 w h e n N = 300.
D a s h e s i n d i c a t e v a r i a b l e s w e r e o m i t t e d f r o m the r e g r e s s i o n
analysis .
TABLE 6 47
T E S T OF C O N T R I B U T I O N O F T H E E X P E R I M E N T A L P R E D I C T O R S
("S” & "C") F O R P R E D I C T I O N OF L E A D E R S H I P E F F E C T I V E N E S S
C L A S S O F 1969 (N = 2 8 8 ) .
H ypothesis R egr e s sions

Compared
II. "S" & "C" i m p r o v e

p r e d i c t i o n (all U S A F A
p r e d i c t o r s u s e d in the A & B,
analysis) Table 4 .55 >.05
II. nS" & "C" i m p r o v e

p r e d i c t i o n (only
Leadership C om posite C &D
u s e d in the a n a l y s i s ) Table 5 1.07 >.05
48
the data for the Class of 1970. Again, none of the cor
relations between the leadership opinion variables and
the criterion were statistically significant. The dif-
2
ferences between the R 7s were not statistically signi
ficant (Table 9) and the Initiating Structure and Consid
eration variables did not enter the regression equation
until the sixth and eighth steps, respectively.
The results for Hypothesis I showed that the leader
ship opinion varibales did not make a significant contri
bution to the prediction of leadership success when em
ployed as experimental predictors in traditional correla
tional and multiple linear regression models. This find
ing was generally consistent with the results of indepen
dent studies employing these variables (see Fleishman,
1957; Korman, 1966). Although a few of the studies re
ported significant predictive and/or concurrent validities,
most of the correlations between these variables and var
ious criteria of leadership effectiveness were in the low
to moderate range. The results of the present study showed
that the Initiating Structure and Consideration variables
correlated positively with the independent measure of lead
ership success, but that the correlations were not signifi
cantly greater than zero. Thus it is appropriate to men
tion that these correlations were not corrected for the
restriction of range present in the cadet sample in com
parison with the total group of qualified candidates. It
was not possible to estimate the unrestricted correlations
because the assumptions necessary for applying such a cor
rection were not met due.to the complexity of the criteria
49
TABLE 7
VALIDITIES AN D COMPARISON OF M U L T I P L E CORRELATION

C O E F F I C IE N T S O B T A I N E D FROM REGRESSION AN ALYSES
AGAINST THE MILITARY RATING, EXCLUDING VERSUS
INCLUDING THE E X P E R I M E N T A L P REDICTO RS ("S" AND
"C") CLASS OF 1970 (N = 304)
R eg ressio n A nalysis
P red ictor V a l i d i t y a> ^ A g a i n s t M i l i t a r y R a t in g
E F
L ead ersh ip opinions
Initiating str u c tu r e . 086 • • « •
C onsideration . 014 • 4 4 •
A cadem y predictors
A c a d e m ic group
P r io r academ ic
record . 212
V e r b a l ap tit u de - . 105
E nglish com position - . 086
M a t h ap t it u d e -.158
Math a c h ie v e m e n t - . 184
L e a d e r s h i p grou p
P h y s i c a l ap tit u de
exam . 264
Athletic activities
in d e x . 368
Non athletic a c tiv ity
in d e x . 268
2
R . 2232 .2 2 5 9
R .4 7 2 5 .4753
F ratio 14. 23 10 . 76
P . 001 . 001
a
The v a l id i t y c o e f f i c i e n t is the P e a r s o n p ro du ct m o m e n t c o r r e
la tio n b e t w e e n the p r e d i c t o r s and the m i l i t a r y rating.
^ M i n i m u m r f o r p = . 05 i s . 113 when N = 300; m i n i m u m r for

p = . 01 i s . 148 wh en N = 300.
50
TABLE 8
V A L I D I T I E S A N D C O M P A R I S O N OF M U L T I P L E C O R R E L A T I O N
C O E F F IC IE N T S O B T A IN E D FR O M REGRESSION A N A L Y S E S AGAINST
THE M ILITARY RATING, EX C LU D IN G VERSUS INCLUDING THE
E X P E R I M E N T A L P R E D I C T O R S ("S" an d "C") C L A S S O F 1970 (N = 304)
R eg ressio n A nalysis
P redictor V a lid i ty 'a’b A g a i n s t M i l i t a r y R a t in g
G H
L e a d e r sh ip opinions
c
Initiating stru ctu re . 086
c
C onsideration .014
A cad em y P red ictor
L ead ersh ip C om posite .435
R2 . 1890 . 1927
R . 4348 .4390
F ratio 7 0 , 39 2 3. 87
P< .001 . 001
a The v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t i s the P e a r s o n p r o d u c t m o m e n t c o r r e l a
t i o n b e t w e e n the p r e d i c t o r s an d the m i l i t a r y r a t i n g .
k M i n i m u m r f o r p = . 0 5 i s . 1 1 3 w h e n N = 300.
M i n i m u m r f o r p = . 0 1 i s . 148 w h e n N = 3 00.
Q
D a s h e s i n d i c a t e v a r i a b l e s w e r e o m i t t e d f r o m the r e g r e s s i o n
an alysis.
51
TABLE 9
T E ST OF CONTRIBUTION OF THE E X P E R IM E N T A L PREDICTO RS

("SM & "C") F O R P R E D I C T I O N O F L E A D E R S H I P E F F E C T I V E N E S S
C L A S S OF 1970 <N = 3 0 4 ) .
R egression s
H y p o th e s i s
Com pared
II. nS" & "C" i m p r o v e

p r e d i c t i o n (all U S A F A
p r e d i c t o r s u s e d in the E &F
analysis) Table 7 .51 > . 05
II. nS" "C" i m p r o v e

p r e d i c t i o n (o n ly
L eadership C om posite G &H
u s e d in the a n a l y s i s ) Table 8 . 69 > .05
52
used in the Air Force Academy selection process (see
Thorndike, 1949, pp. 169-176, and Miller, 1966, p. 5).
The qualified candidates are also a highly select group
and the restriction of range present in both the cadet
samples and the candidate populations must be considered
in interpreting the negative findings for Hypothesis I.
Hypothesis II
The use of the leadership opinion variables, Initi

ating Structure and Consideration, as moderators identifies
subgroups of individuals for whom the standard U. S. Air
Force Academy predictor variables yield differential pre
dictive validities.
Results for Low, M o d e r a t e ,

and High Structure Groups
Table 10 presents the means for the Leadership Com

posite and the Military Rating scores and the correlations
between these variables for both samples. All of the cor
relations were significant beyond the .01 level and most
were significant at the .001 level. However, none of the
differences between the correlations were significantly
greater than zero. An examination of the trends of the
means and- correlations showed some evidence of moderating
effects. The highest correlations between the Leadership
Composite and the Military Rating scores were obtained with
the high Initiating Structure group in both samples.
There was a definite trend toward increased predictive
T A B L E 10
S T A N D A R D SCORE MEANS A N D CORRELATIONS B E T W E E N THE
L E A D E R S H I P C O M P O S I T E A N D T H E M I L I T A R Y R A T I N G F O R LOW,
M O D E R A T E , A N D HIGH I N IT IA T IN G S T R U C T U R E , C L A S S E S O F
1969 A N D 1970.
Leadership M i l i t a r y 3,
M oderator C om posite Rating Validity^
V ariable N
M ean s.d. M ean s.d. C o e ffic ie n t
C l a s s of 1969
Initiating str u c tu r e
Low 96 53.4 ~! 6. 9 30. 8 12. 4 . 30*

|
M oderate 96 55.1 j* 6.5 30. 0 13.4 . 38**
1
H ig h 96 55.4 - 6.7 28. 7 11.8 . 4 O'""'
C l a s s of 1970
Initiating stru ctu re
Low 100 52 . 3 - 7.8 32. 1 13. 3 .43
M oderate 100 55.2 ** 7. 3 29. 6 12 . 3 . 37'"'"
H ig h 100 55.7- 7.8 29. 9 12. 9 . 5 1 ' ....
T h e m i l i t a r y r a t i n g s c a l e is r e v e r s e d ; a l o w n u m e r i c a l s c o r e i n d i
c a t e s a h i g h r a t i n g on l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
T h e v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t i s the P e a r s o n p r o d u c t m o m e n t c o r r e l a t i o n
b e t w e e n the l e a d e r s h i p c o m p o s i t e an d the m i l i t a r y r a t i n g .
Significant at p = . 0 1
Significant at p = . 0 0 1
" Significant d iffe r e n c e b e tw e e n m e a n s at p = .01
1 ^
JSignificant d iffe r e n c e b etw een m e a n s at p = . 001

54
validity from the low to the moderate and high groups for
the Class of 1969, and the same general trend was apparent
for the Class of 1970 when the low and moderate groups were
compared with the high group. T h u s , the trend was gener
ally consistent across the two samples.
In terms of practical utility, for the Class of 1969
the differences between the square of the correlation coe-
2
fficient for the high Structure group (r = ,167) versus
2
the low group (r = .090) confirmed that the Leadership
Composite was a more accurate predictor for the high group.
For the Class of 1970, the proportion of the criterion
variance accounted for by the Leadership Composite was
2
again greater for the high group (r = .260) than for the
2
low group (r =.1S5).
An examination of the means of the Military Rating
scores indicated a definite trend (p<.1 0 ) toward better
ratings from the low to the high Structure groups in both
samples. More evidence of moderating effects was provided
by the highly consistent pattern of the means of the Lead
ership Composite scores across both samples. The low
groups were differentiated from the high groups, with the
high Initiating Structure groups having the highest mean
score on the Leadership Composite. The results of the t_
tests of the differences between the low and high groups
were significant at the .01 level for the Class of 1969,
and at the .001 level for the Class of 1970.
55
Results for Low Versus High Structure Groups
Table 11 presents the data for this analysis. All of

the correlations were highly significant (p<.0 0 1 ), but
none of the differences between the correlations (uncor
rected for restriction of range) were statistically sig
nificant. However, a definite and consistent pattern was
apparent between the low and high Structure groups and a
definite trend toward higher correlations between the
standard predictor and the criterion for the high groups
was indicated for both samples. The appearance of this
trend in both samples constituted a replication of the
findings.
In terms of practical utility, for the Class of 1969
the differences between the square of the correlation co-
2
efficient for the low group (r = .109) and the high group
2
(r = .152) indicated that the Leadership Composite was a
more accurate predictor for the high group. For the Class
of 1970, the proportion of the criterion variance accounted
for by the predictor was again greater for the high group
2 2
(r = .2 2 1 ) than the low group (r = .168).
Some evidence of moderating effects was also provided
by the differences between the means of the Military Rat
ings. The.trend toward higher ratings for the high sub
groups was consistent across both samples. (Note that a
lower numerical rating indicates a higher rating on the
criterion of leadership effectiveness.) However, the dif
ferences between the means were not statistically signifi
cant. The same trend was also evident from a comparison of
56
T A B L E 11
ST A N D A R D SC ORE MEANS AND CO R R E L A T IO N S B E T W E E N T H E

L E A D E R S H IP CO M PO SIT E AND T H E M ILITA RY RATING FOR LOW
A N D HIGH INITIATING S T R U C T U R E , CL A SS E S OF 1969 AND 1970
M oderator N Leadership M i l i t a r y 3- Validity ^

Variable Com posite R ating C oefficient
M ean s.d . M ea n s . d.
C l a s s of 1969
Initiating
Structure
Low 144 53. 8 -j 6.6 30.4 12.5 . 33*
High 144 55. 4 -i 6.9 29. 3 29. 3 . 39*
C l a s s of 1970
Initiating
Structure
Low 150 54.3-, 7.6 31.1 12.9 . 41*
High 150 55. 8-1 7.7 29.9 12.8 . 47*
aT h e m i l i t a r y r a t i n g s c a l e is r e v e r s e d ; a low n u m e r i c a l s c o r e
i n d i c a t e s a high r a t i n g on l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
1
_
T h e v a l id i t y c o e f f i c i e n t is the P e a r s o n p r o d u c t m o m e n t c o r r e l a
tion b e t w e e n the l e a d e r s h i p c o m p o s i t e and the m i l i t a r y ra ti n g .
* S i g n if i c a n t at p = . 001
( ^ S i g n i f ic a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n m e a n s at p = .02
|** S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n m e a n s at p = .01
57
the means of the standard Academy predictor (Leadership

Composite). For both samples, higher Leadership Composite
means were obtained by the high Structure groups. The dif
ferences between the means were statistically significant
for both samples using a two-tailed test (Class of 1969,
t=2.83, 286 df, p<.01; Class of 1970, t=2.39, 298 df,
P<.02).
In interpreting these results, the restriction of
range must again be considered when evaluating the lack of
statistically significant differences between the validity
coef-f-icients. The validity coefficients are relatively
low because only the Leadership Composite was used as the
standard predictor variable instead of the full set of the
predictor and selection variables employed by the USAF
Academy. Thus, in the discussion of practical utility
the emphasis was placed on the relative differences between
the validity coefficients rather than their absolute magni
tude .
In summary, none of the differences between the vali
dity coefficients for the Initiating Structure subgroups
were statistically significant. However, the consistent
pattern of trends of the means and correlations showed
evidence of differential predictive validities obtained by
using the Initiating Structure variable as an experimental
moderator in the moderator model design. Support for Hy
pothesis II was provided by the differential utility of
this moderating approach as indicated by the differences
in the proportion of the criterion variance accounted for
by the standard predictor (the Leadership Composite) for
58
the various subgroups. These results indicate that the
Initiating Structure variable identifies subgroups of in
dividuals for whom the standard Air Force Academy predictor
yields differential predictive validities. Because the dif
ferences between the validity coefficients of the various
Initiating Structure subgroups were not statistically sig
nificant, the results provided only tentative support for
Hypothesis II.
Results for Low, Moderate

and High Consideration Groups
Table 12 presents the data for this analysis. None

of the differences between the correlations were statistic
ally significant. In addition, the pattern of the differ
ential predictive validities was exactly opposite for the
two different samples.
An examination of the mean scores on the Military Rat
ing criterion revealed a definite trend (p<.0 2 ) toward
better ratings from the low to the high subgroups for the
Class of 1969. This pattern was not present in the Class
of 1970 sample, and the differences between the means of
the subgroups were not significant. For the Leadership
Composite scores, there were no significant differences
between the means for the Consideration subgroups and
there were no consistent patterns of the mean scores across
the two sample s .
Results for Low Versus High

Consideration Groups
Table 13 presents the data for this analysis. All of
59
T A B L E 12
S T A N D A R D SCORE M E A N S AND CORRELATIONS B E T W E E N THE

LEAD ERSHIP C O M P O SIT E AND T H E MIL IT ARY RATING FOR LOW,
M O D E R A T E , AN D HIGH CONSIDERATION, CLA SS ES OF 1969 AND
1970
Moderator Leadership M ilitarya

Variable N Com posite Rating Validity*3
Coefficient
M ean s.d . M ean s . d.
C l a s s of 1969
Consideration
Low 96 54. 3 6.2 31. 5 -, 12. 2

i
. 31 *
1
M oderate 96 55. 0 7.9 29. 7 I* 1 2 . 9 . 46 **
High 96 54. 6 6. 1 28. 3 — 1 2 . 4 . 2 8*
C l a s s of 1970
Consideration
Low 100 55. 5 8. 1 30. 4 13. 6 . 48**
M oderate 100 53. 9 6. 9 30. 5 12. 7 . 39**
High 100 55. 3 8. 0 30. 6 12. 3 . 42 * *
a
The m i l i t a r y r a t i n g s c a l e is r e v e r s e d ; a low n u m e r i c a l s c o r e
i n d i c a t e s a h ig h r a t i n g on l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
Vi
T h e v a l i d i ty c o e f f i c i e n t is the P e a r s o n p r o d u c t m o m e n t c o r
r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n the l e a d e r s h i p c o m p o s i t e and the m i l i t a r y ra tin g .
* S i g n if i c a n t at p = . 01
** S i g n if i c a n t at p a . 001
_ [ * S i g n if i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n m e a n s at p = .02
60
T A B L E 13
I
S T A N D A R D SCORE M EA NS A N D CORRELATIONS B E T W E E N THE
L E A D E R S H I P C O M P O S I T E A N D T H E M I L I T A R Y R A T I N G F O R LOW
A N D HIGH C O N S I D E R A T I O N , C L A S S E S OF 1969 A N D 1970.
1 L eadership M i l i t a r y 3,
M oderator 1 Com posite Rating V alidity
V ariable N Coefficien
Mean s . d . 11 M e a n s.d.
C l a s s of 1969 1i
I
C onsideration
Low 144 54. 7 6.7 30. 1 12. 5 . 35'"
H ig h 144 54. 5 6.9 29. 6 12. 6 . 37*
C l a s s of 1970
C onsideration
Low 150 54. 9 7.7 30. 3 13. 6 . 46

»•*
H ig h 150 54. 9 7 .7 30 . 7 12. 1 .40
The m ilit a r y rating s c a le is r e v e r s e d ; a low n u m e r ic a l s c o r e

i n d i c a t e s a h ig h r a t i n g on l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
k T h e v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t i s the P e a r s o n p r o d u c t m o m e n t c o r r e
l a t i o n b e t w e e n the l e a d e r s h i p c o m p o s i t e and the m i l i t a r y r a t i n g .
'‘' • S i g n i f i c a n t at p = . 0 0 1
61
the correlations were highly significant (p<.001). How
ever, none of the differences between the correlations were
statistically significant and there was no consistent pat
tern of the correlations across the two samples. An exami
nation of the means on the Leadership Composite and the
Military Rating variables did not reveal a clear pattern
across the two samples.
In summary, the results for the Consideration sub
groups do not provide support for Hypothesis II.
Results for Subgroups Based on Combinations

of Scores on Both Moderator Variables
Table 14 presents the data for the Classes of 1969

and 1970. The most evident and consistent pattern was the
definite trend in the direction of better Military Ratings
from the low to the high groups. As noted in Table 14, a
lower numerical rating indicates higher achievement on the
criterion of leadership effectiveness. For the Class of
1969, the difference between the means of the low and high
groups was highly significant (t=2.71, 38 df, p<.005, one
tailed test). The difference between the means for the
same groups from the Class of 1970 showed the same trend
(t=1.08, 40 df, p<.07, one-tailed test).
Ah inspection of the Leadership Composite scores for
the Class of 1969 revealed a definite trend toward higher
mean scores from the low to the high groups. The differ
ence between the means of the low and high groups was in
the expected direction and was highly significant (t=8.13,
38 df, p<.005, one-tailed test). In contrast with this
62
T A B L E 14
ST A N D A R D SCORE MEANS A ND CORRELATIONS B E T W E E N THE

L E A D E R S H IP COM POSITE A N D THE M ILITARY RATING FOR
C O M B I N A T I O N S O F " SM A N D "C" S C O R E S , C L A S S E S O F 1969 A N D
1970.
L eadership M i l i t a r y 3- ,
S c o r e s on B o t h C om posite Rating V alidity
N
"S ” & "C" 1 Coefficient
Mean s.d. Mean s.d
C l a s s o f 1969
B e l o w -1 s . d . 22 52. O-i 6. 0 3 2 . 7- 1 12. 2 . 30
B e t w e e n -1 s . d .
an d + 1 s . d . 72 55 . 5 .. 7.2 31. 1 12. 8 .43
Above +1 s . d . 18 56. 1- 6. 6 22.4 - 11.3 .23
C l a s s o f 1970
B e l o w -1 s . d . 19 57 . 5 9- 1 31.8 12.4 . 58*

|■
I
B e t w e e n -1 s . d . i
and +1 s . d . ! 61 53.4 7.5 29. 6 12. 6 . 38'"
!
Above +1 s . d . ; 23 56. 9 8.4 27.4 13.4 . 63"
a The m il i t a r y rating s c a le is r e v e r s e d ; a low n u m e r ic a l s c o r e

i n d i c a t e s a h i g h r a t i n g on l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
b
T h e v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t i s the P e a r s o n p r o d u c t m o m e n t c o r r e
l a t i o n b e t w e e n the l e a d e r s h i p c o m p o s i t e a n d the m i l i t a r y r a t i n g .
Significant at p = .005 (one-tailed test).

— Si gni fi cant d iffe r e n c e b etw een m e a n s at p = . 00 5 ( o n e -t a ile d ) .
*3** S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n m e a n s a t p = . 0 0 0 5 ( o n e - t a i l e d ) .
63
finding, the pattern of the Leadership Composite scores for

the Class of 1970 was not consistent, and the differences
were not in the expected direction.
When the trends of the Leadership Composite means were
compared with those for the Military Rating for the Class
of 1969, a consistent pattern of improvement was evident
on both measures from the low to the high groups. For the
Class of 1970, this trend was only observed with the means
of the Military Rating scores.
These results provide support for the hypothesis that
the use of the leadership opinion variables identifies sub
groups of individuals who are differentiated in terms of
their scores on the criterion of leadership effectiveness.
The finding that subjects who scored high on both the Ini
tiating Structure and Consideration variables had the best
Military Ratings was consistent with the results of inde
pendent studies employing these variables. Thus, the in
vestigator tentatively concluded that the possible inter
actions of various combinations of scores on the leader
ship opinion (ideal role expectation) variables were more
significant in terms of implications for leadership theory
and the prediction of leadership success than scores on
the individual leadership opinion variables, Initiating
Structure or Consideration. The investigator considered
this a tentative conclusion because the small sample size
in the extreme subgroups made it necessary to interpret
the results with caution.
Finally, additional evidence in support of Hypothesis
II was provided by the results of the regression analyses
64
conducted for the evaluation of Hypothesis III (Tables 15
and 16).
Hypothesis III
The derivation of separate prediction equations for

each subgroup established on the basis of scores on the
experimental moderator variables, Initiating Structure and
Consideration, enhances the predictive power of the stand
ard Academy predictors when these equations are used with
equivalent subgroups upon cross-validation.
Results for Low, M o d e r a t e ,

and High Structure Groups
Tables 15 and 16 present the multiple correlation

coefficients obtained from the multiple linear regression
analyses used to derive the prediction equations for the
analysis of this hypothesis. Table 17 presents the re
sults obtained by using the prediction equations deve
loped from the regression analysis for the Class of 1970
Initiating Structure subgroups to predict the Military Rat
ings for subjects from equivalent subgroups in the Class of
1969, and vice versa. All of the correlations were statis
tically significant (p<.05 or p<.01). Differential pre
dictive accuracy was reflected by the trend of the differ
ences between the correlations for the Initiating Structure
subgroups in both samples. None of the differences between
the correlations (uncorrected for restriction of range)
65
T A B L E 15
R E G R E S S I O N A N A L Y S I S A G A I N S T T H E M I L I T A R Y RAT ING,
I N IT IA T IN G S T R U C T U R E G R O U P S , TWO S A M P L E S .
Degrees
C l a s s o f 1969 N R R2 F of ; P <
Freedom
L ow , m o d e r a t e , h i g h !
subgroups
. !1
I
Low 96 . 30 .09 i 4.74 2/93 i1. 05
i 1
i
M oderate 96 . 38 . 15 8.11 2/93 I . 001
•
H ig h 96 .44 . 19 ; 7.21 3/92 ; . 001
Low & high sub group s
Low 144 . 33 . 11 5. 63 3 / 140 ,.01
H ig h 144 .4 1 . 17 9. 56 3/140 .001
Total group 288 . 37 . 14 15. 07 3/284 .001

f
1i
C l a s s of 1970
Low , m o d e r a t e , high
subgroups
Low 100 .48 23 9.69 ! 3/96 1.001
M oderate 100 .40 ,16 6.01 3/96 :.001
High 100 .51 26 11.38 3/96 :. 001
L o w &: h i g h s u b g r o u p s
Low 150 .46 , 21 12.85 i 3/146 j.001

: ! !
High 150 ' .48 23 21.80 i 2/147 !.001

! i
1 t
Total group 304 .44 19 23.87 ; 3/300 L001

66
T A B L E 16
R E G R E S S I O N A N A L Y S IS A G A I N S T T H E M I L I T A R Y R A T IN G ,
C O N S I D E R A T IO N G R O U P S , TW O S A M P L E S
1 i
2 Degrees j
C l a s s of 1969 j N R R f i of 1
j Freedom J
i t I
i
i
Low, m o d e r a t e , high j i
tI
su b g r o u p s j <
I
Low 96 . 32 . 10 3. 56 3/92 . 05
M oderate 96 . 46 . 22 8. 42 3/92 . 001
High 96 .29 . 08 2. 84 3/92 . 05

t
Low & high su b g r o u p s
i
Low 144 . 36 10. 29 2/141 . 001

1 .13
High 144 . 39 . 16 8. 62 3/140 . 001
T o t a l group 288 .37 . 14 15. 07 3/284 . 001
C l a s s of 1970
Low, m o d e r a t e , high
subgroups
Low 100 . 49 . 24 10. 18 3/96 . 001

:
100
00
00
Moderate . 39 . 15 . 001
1—1
i | 1/98
. High 100 I .44 . 20 11. 94 2/97 . 001
Low & high su b g r o u p s
Low 150 . 47 . 22 13. 69 3/146 . 001
High 150 . 42 . 18 10. 70 3/146 . 001
T o t a l group 304 .44 .19 23. 87 3/300 . 001

T A B L E 17
C O R R E L A T IO N S B E T W E E N THE P R E D I C T E D A N D A C T U A L MILITARY RATINGS FO R TWO

I N D E P E N D E N T S A M P L E S , . INITIATING S T R U C T U R E G R O U P S .
C l a s s of 1969 N r C l a s s of 1970 N r
Low, m o d e r a t e , high Low, m o d e r a t e , high

subgroups subgroups
Low 96 .2 34" Low 100 .407
M oderate 96 .358 M oderate 100 .372
High 96 .388 High 100 .470
L o w & high s u b g r o u p s L o w & high s u b g r o u p s
Low 144 .281 Low 150 .411
High 144 .406 High 150 .473
T o t a l group 288 .364 T o t a l gro up 304 .434
Not e:
S i g n i f i c a n t at p = . 0 5 .
A l l o t h e r c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t at p < . 0 1 ( t w o - t a i l e d t e s t ) .
68
were statistically significant. However, the definite

trend toward greater predictive accuracy for the high
groups as compared to the low groups in both samples pro
vided evidence that differential predictive validity exis
ted between these subgroups.
Results for Low Versus High Structure Subgroups
Table 17 also presents the results obtained from the

double cross-validation procedure employed for the low ver
sus the high Initiating Structure groups for both samples.
All of the correlations between the predicted and actual
Military Ratings were statistically significant. Differen
tial predictive validity was apparent between the two sub
groups in each sample. There was a consistent pattern of
higher predictive validities for the high Structure groups
across both samples. Although none of the differences be
tween the correlations (uncorrected for restriction of
range) were statistically significant, differential utility
was indicated by a comparison of the proportion of the cri
terion variance accounted for by the predictors. For the
2
Class of 1969, the proportion for the high group (r =
2
.165) was double that for the low group (r = .079). For
the Class of 1970, the differences were somewhat less, but
2
in the same direction (high group, r = .224) versus (low
2
group, r = .169).
In summary, most of the findings of independent stud
ies show that moderator variables usually fail to "hold
up" on cross-validation. The fact that the Initiating
69
Structure variable "held-up" upon double cross-validation
provided strong supporting evidence that this variable was
effective as a moderator for identifying subgroups for
whom differential predictive validities were obtained.
Results for Low, Mode r a t e , and

High Consideration Groups
Table 18 presents the results obtained using the sep

arate prediction equations for the Consideration groups in
the double-cross validation design. None of the differen
ces between the correlations for the subgroups in each sam
ple were statistically significant and there was no consis
tent pattern across the two samples.
Results for Low Versus High Consideration Groups
The results for this method of subgrouping are also

presented in Table 18. None of the differences between the
correlations were statistically significant and there was
no consistent pattern of differences across the two samples.
Therefore, these results again showed that the Considera
tion variable was not an effective moderator in this re
search setting.
Question I
Were the two original dimensions of the Leadership

Opinion Questionnaire, Initiating Structure and Considera
tion, factorially pure when used with the USAFA cadet
T A B L E 18
C O R R E L A T IO N S B E T W E E N THE P R E D I C T E D A N D A C T U A L M ILITA R Y RATINGS, CONS ID ER AT ION

GROUPS.
C l a s s of 1969 N r C l a s s o f 1970 N r
Low, m o d e r a t e , high Low, m o d e r a t e , high

subgroups subgroups
L ow 96 .285 Low 100 . 467
M oderate 96 . 461 M oderate 100 .388
H igh 96 .279 High 100 .436
L o w 8c h igh s u b g r o u p s L o w 8c high s u b g r o u p s
Low 144 .355 Lo w 150 .467
H igh 144 .362 High 150 .400
T o t a l gro up 288 .364 T o t a l Group 300 .434
N o te:
A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t at p < . 0 1 ( t w o - t a i l e d t e s t ) .
71
samples, and if not, what other meaningful factors would
emerge from a factor analysis?
Method of Analysis
The responses of the subjects to the original forty

items were used as the input data for the factor analysis.
2
A standard computer program was used to perform a prin
cipal component solution and an orthogonal rotation of the
factor matrix. A separate factor analysis was performed
for each independent sample to check the consistency of
the factors and the loadings across the two samples. A
sufficient number of items had consistent and reasonably
high loadings on the three major factors identified for
both samples that it was decided to use only these items
for the additional analysis. These items were also exam
ined for their discrimination power in terms of the load
ings on the principal factors versus the loadings across
the other factors. Finally, an analysis of the internal
consistency of the factor derived scales was performed
and the results were compared to those obtained for the
original scales.
2
The BMD03M computer program was used for this analy
sis. See Dixon, 1964 for a description of the program.
72
Results
The data derived from the factor analysis showed the

relevance of most of the original items on the Initiating
Structure and Consideration scales for both of the USAF
Academy cadet samples (Tables 19 and 20). From an inspec
tion of the items with high loadings on the third factor
(Table 21), it was clear that they represented a "change"
dimension. The appearance of this factor in both samples
provided strong evidence of the reality of the factor for
these groups. The findings of a separate study (Kaats and
Thompson, 1968) employing Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale with
samples of USAF Academy cadets provided additional evi
dence of the significance of a "change" dimension in this
research setting. A comparison of the data in Tables 1,
2 , and 22 indicated that the factor derived scales had
greater internal consistency than did the original scales.
The homogeneity ratio, unlike traditional measures of in
ternal consistency, is not affected by scale length.
Therefore, the differences shown for the results on this
measure actually reflect the differences in internal con
sistency. On the other hand, Cronbach's alpha could not
be adjusted for the differences in scale length. The fact
that approximately the same level of internal consistency
as measured by Cronbach's alpha was obtained with the
shorter, factor derived scales as with the original twenty
item scales provided strong evidence that the factor de
rived scales had greater internal consistency. Also, the
factor derived Initiating Structure and Consideration .
T A B L E 19
I T E M S W I T H H I G H L O A D I N G O N F A C T O R I: INITIATING S T R U C T U R E , L O A D I N G S D E R I V E D
F R O M F A C T O R A N A L Y S I S F O R T W O I N D E P E N D E N T S A M P L E S , C L A S S O F 1969 (N = 288)
A N D C L A S S O F 1970 (N = 304)
•
C l a s s of 1969 C l a s s of 1970
O r ig in a l Factor Factor
Ite m I II III I II III
N u m b e r 3-
F a c t o r Loadings F a c t o r Loadings
6 C r i t i c i z e poor work. . 34 - . 10 18 . 45 - . 10 . 04
9 I n s i s t that p e r s o n s under you

follow to the l e t t e r t h o s e standard
r o u t i n e s handed down to you. .42 -.19 12 .40 - . 34 .07
14 A s s i g n p e r s o n s under you to
particular tasks. .41 14 25 . 45 - . 04 -.12
16 S t r e s s i m p o r t a n c e of being
ct>
ahead of other units. .46 14 . 45 . 00 . 29
1
0
•
*
20 E m p h a s i z e m e e t i n g of d e a d l i n e s . . 39 . 00 04 . 40 - . 08 . 09
21 I n s i s t that you be in f o r m e d on
d e c i s i o n s m a de by p e r s o n s under
you. .46 . U 04 1. 40 . 01 - . 01
22 Offer new a p p r o a c h e s to p r o b l e m s . . 33 . 04 49 . 58 . 18 - . 19
27 Rule with iron hand. . 54 32 - . 13 . 35 - . 34 . 07
31 S e e to it that p e r s o n s under you

a r e w o r k in g up to c ap a c ity. . 58 06 . 25 . 61 -.1 3 . 06
35 Ask fo r s a c r i f i c e s f r o m p e r s o n s
under you f o r the good of your
e n t i r e unit. . 39 .13 16 . 42 - . 01 . 28
39 Encourage slow -w ork in g persons

in yo ur unit to work h a r d e r . . 52 - . 26 . 07 . 56 - . 07 . 11
40 M e e t with the p e r s o n s in your

unit at c e r t a i n r e g u l a r l y
scheduled tim es. .46 . 06 03 . 50 . 02 06
S ee Appendix A. A l l i t e m s w e r e o r i g i n a l l y a s s i g n e d to the Initiating Str uc tur e

s c a l e and w e r e s c o r e d p o s i t i v e l y .
T A B L E 20
I T E M S W I T H HI GH L O A D I N G O N F A C T O R II: C ONS IDE RAT ION . L O A D I N G S D E R I V E D F R O M

F A C T O R A N A L Y S I S F O R T W O I N D E P E N D E N T S A M P L E S , C L A S S O F 1969 (N = 288) A N D C L A S S
O F 1970 (N = 304).
O rig in a l C l a s s of 1969 C l a s s of 1970

Ite m Item S c o r in g Factor F ac tor
3.
N u m ber I II I II III
III
F a c t o r Loadings F a c t o r Loadings
12 Get the approva l of p e r s o n ' s important
m a t t e r s b e f o r e goi ng ahead. + .09 .56 -.12 -.11 .52 .28
19 Do p e r s o n a l f a v o r s for p e r s o n s under
you. + - . 10 . 54 - . 15 -.02 . 43 . 36
23 T r e a t a l l p e r s o n s under you as your

equals. + - . 02 . 50 . 06 - . 09 . 52 . 09
29 Change the duties of p e r s o n s under you

without f i r s t talking it o v e r with them. - . 04 -.45 -. 19 - . 09 - . 52 . 22
33 Put s u g g e s t i o n s m ade by p e r s o n s in
the unit into operation. + . 15 . 35 . 27 .24 . 52 - . 22
34 R e f u s e to explain your actions. - . 06 -.41 - . 27 - . 04 - . 47 . 13
36 A c t without con su ltin g p e r s o n s under

you. -
.02 - . 62 . 06 . 07 - . 48 . 04
38 I n s i s t that e v e r y th in g be done your way. - . 34 -.4 0 . 26 . 06 -.41 . 49
aSee Appendix A. All i t e m s w e r e o r i g i n a l l y a s s i g n e d to the C o n sid e r a t io n s c a l e .
T A B L E 21 76
I T E M S W I T H HIG H L O A D I N G O N F A C T O R III; C H A N G E . L O A D I N G S
DE RIVED F R O M F A C T O R ANALYSIS F O R T W O SAMPLES, CLASSES
O F 1969 (N = 288) A N D 1970 (N = 304)
C l a s s of 1969 C l a s s of 1970
a O riginal
It e m S c a l e and F acto: Factor
Scoring
b
I II III ib II III
F a c t o r L o a d in g s F a c t o r L o a d in g s
11 B e s l o w to C- . 07 07 +. 58 +. 26 15 . 42
adopt new
ideas
13 R e sist changes C- . 10 02 +. 63 +. 22 04 . 49
in w a y s of
do ing t hin g s
24 B e w i l l i n g to c+ . 12 . 06 56 37 . 31 21
make changes
28 Reject s u g g e s c- . 06 . 12 +. 41 +. 05 12 . 42
t i o n s fo r
changes
I t e m n u m b e r on q u e s t i o n n a i r e , A p pend ix A.
b
S ig n s r e f l e c t e d .
T A B L E 22
R A W S C O R E M E A N S , S T A N D A R D DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITIES, A N D I N T E R C O R R E L A T I O N S O F
T H E F A C T O R D E R I V E D S U B S C A L E S IN T H E L E A D E R S H I P OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE, AIR F O R C E
A C A D E M Y C L A S S E S O F 1969 (N =2 88) A N D 1970 (N = 304)
Num ber S u b s ca le Meana Standard R e l ia b il i t y H o m o g e n e it y

Subscale of de viation
item s 1 2 3 r a tio
r r r
C l a s s o f 1969
1. Initiating s t r u c t u r e 12 -.18 .04 33. 7 4. 6 . 69 . 16
2. C o n sid e r a t io n 8 . 10 18. 7 4.0 . 63 .18
3. Open to change 4 11. 5 1. 9 . 56 .24
C l a s s o f 1970
1. Initiating s t r u c t u r e 12 -.12 .15 35. 4 4. 7 . 72 .18
2. C o n sid e r a t io n 8 . 21 18. 6 3. 9 . 62 .17
3. Open to change 4 11. 3 2. 0 . 56 . 24
A l t e r n a t i v e r e s p o n s e s fo r each i t e m w e r e w e ig hted z e r o to four. Thus, the h ig h es t

p o s s i b l e s c o r e for the s u b s c a l e with 12 i t e m s w a s 48.
^ R e l i a b i li t y w a s m e a s u r e d by Cro nb a ch 's alpha.
Q
H o m o g e n e i t y ra tio i s a w eig hted a v e r a g e i n t e r i t e m c o r r e l a t i o n .
78
scales showed greater independence than did the original
scales. Finally, no previous studies were found where a
"change" dimension was identified from a factor analysis
of the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. It appeared that
this result constituted a unique finding.
Question II
Would individuals expressing different leadership

opinions differ on independent measures of personality
variables and/or scores obtained on the standard USAFA
predictor and criterion variables? More specifically,
would the differences on selected personality variables
provide evidence of construct validity for the Initiating
Structure, Consideration, and Change factors resulting
from the factor analysis?
Method of Analysis
A one-way analysis of variance was conducted using

the following data; The independent variables were the
two original dimensions of the Leadership Opinion Ques
tionnaire and the three factor-derived dimensions. For
each of these variables, the subjects were classified in
to low, moderate, and high categories (levels) based on
their scores on the particular variable. The dependent
variables were the standard USAF Academy predictor and
criterion variables and the fifteen variables from the
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) (see Edwards,
79
1953, 1957; Buros, 1965). The EPPS is a forced-choice in

ventory designed to measure the relative importance of fif
teen "normal" personality variables. A total of 241 ca
dets in the sample from the Class of 1970 (N = 1030) were
administered the EPPS upon their arrival at the USAF A c a
demy. The variables for which significant results were ob
tained are defined below. The other EPPS variables were: '
Achievement, Deference, Exhibition, Autonomy, Intraception,
Dominance, and Abasement. The "Change" variable is defined
below because of its relevance to this study even though
no significant results were obtained for this variable.
Order: To have things organized, to make advance
plans, to organize the details of work.
Affiliation: To form new friendships, to make as many
friends as possible, to do things for friends.
Succorance; To have others provide help when in
trouble, to have others be kindly, to receive a great deal
of affection from others.
Nurturance; To help friends when they are in trouble,
to treat others with kindness and sympathy, to show a great
deal of affection for others.
Change: To do new and different things, to exper
ience novelty and change in daily routine, to try differ
ent jobs, to travel and live in different places.
Endurance: To keep at a job until it is finished, to
persevere, to work hard at a task.
Heterosexuality: To engage in social activities with
the opposite sex, to kiss those of the opposite sex, to dis
cuss sex, to read books involving sex, to become sexually
excited.
80
Aggression: To attack contrary points of view, to get

revenge for insults, to blame others when things go wrong,
to get angry.
Results
Because of the large number of comparisons made for

this analysis, some statistically significant results could
have occurred due to chance alone. Where statistically
significant results were obtained, the constructs represen
ted by the variables were examined for evidence of a lo
gical relationship.
The results for the relationships between the Ini
tiating Structure variable and the Academy selection vari
ables showed that significant differences were obtained
only with the factor-derived scale (Table 23). This find
ing provided further evidence of the greater power of the
factor scale as compared to the original Initiating Struc
ture scale. The high structure group consistently had the
highest mean score on such achievement measures as the
Prior Academic Record, Athletic Activity Index, and the
Leadership Composite. The high structure group also re
ceived the best mean score on the independent measure of
leadership effectiveness, but the differences between the
subgroups were not statistically significant. The consis
tency of the results for these achievement measures lends
some assurance that statistical significance was not just
a function of chance and that actual differences were indi
cated.
81
T A B L E 23
MEANS FOR INITIATING S T R U C T U R E GROUPS ON USA FA

S E L E C T I O N VA RIA BL ES A N D E P P S M EASU RES.
Initiating S t r u c t u r e
Variable O riginal Scale F actor Scale
i
(1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3)
Low Mod. High Low Mod, High
;
<
USAFA v a r i a b l e s
P rio r academ ic
record 564. 9 572. 7 580. 7* 571.4 557. 6 588. 5b
A thletic activity
index 515. 2 513. 7 534. 3 521. 3 499. 7 5 4 1 . 7d
L eadership 1-
com posite 1627. 3 16 53. 1 167 1. 2* 1635. 6 1621. 3 1692. 0
Selection
com posite 601. 0 607. 4 605. 4 602. 2 600. 6 610. 4b
Edwards P P S
Order 12. 08 12. 59 13. 0 ^ 11. 92 12. 20 13. 55°

Succorance 12. 24 10. 59 10. 60^*c 12. 05 11. 08 10. 41°
b e
E n d u ra n ce 13. 60 15. 35 15. 81a >e 1 3 . 7 4 14. 58 16. 30
b. e
H e t e r o s e x u a lity 16. 18 14. 64 14. 0 9 e 16. 11 15. 27 13. 69
Notes:
S a m p l e f r o m c l a s s of 1970. F o r USA F A s e l e c t i o n v a r i a b l e s N = 304;
f o r E P P S m e a s u r e s N=241 (the n u m b e r of S s in the p r e s e n t s a m p l e who
w e r e a l s o in the r a n d o m s a m p l e o f t h is c l a s s who w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d
the E P P S upon t h e i r a r r i v a l at th e U SAF A).
V a r i a b l e s a r e not show n in t h i s t a b l e if t h e r e w e r e no m e a n i n g f u l
trends or sta tistic a lly significant d ifferen ces between groups.
A l l p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l s b a s e d on t_ v a l u e s ad ju ste d for u n e q u a l
v a r i a n c e s w h en a p p r o p r i a t e .
a=l-2p<.05 c = 1 - 3 p <. 05 e = l-3p^.01
b = 2 - 3 p < . 05 d = 2 - 3 p <. 05 t = trend
For the Structure-EPPS relationships, statistically
significant differences between subgroups were obtained
with the Order, Succorance, Endurance, and Heterosexuality
variables (Table 23). Of these, the most logical relation
ship was between the Structure and Order variables due to
the obvious similarity of the constructs. The indication
of a trend toward significant differences between the low
and high groups on the original Initiating Structure scale
became statistically significant (p<.05) with the factor-
derived Initiating Structure scale. For the Endurance
variable, there were significant differences between sub
groups on both the original and the factor-derived scales.
Some inferences were required to explain the Structure-
Endurance relationship. Some of the items on the Struc
ture scale (Appendix A) emphasize production orientation
and the Endurance construct could be related to this
"work harder" and "meet deadlines" orientation. Also,
the concept of Endurance seemed to be implied in the
description of the Initiating Structure variable which
states, "A high score on this dimension characterizes
individuals who play a more active role in directing
group activities. . . Fleishman, 1960, p. 3 ." Because
of the tenuous nature of these inferences, this explana
tion of a possible relationship between the Structure and
Endurance variables was somewhat speculative. The sig
nificant differences between subgroups on the Heterosexu
ality and Succorance variables could not be explained with
out entering into undue speculation.
83
None of the results for the relationships between the

Consideration variable and the Academy selection variables
were statistically significant. For the Consideration-EPPS
analysis, statistically significant differences between
subgroups existed for the Achievement, Affiliation, Nurtur-
ance, and Aggression variables (Table 24). The relation
ships between the Affiliation, Nurturance, Aggression, and
Consideration variables were obvious and required no ex
planation. The trends of the mean scores of the low, mod
erate, and high Consideration groups on the Affiliation,
Nurturance, and Aggression variables were in the expected
direction. The statistical significance of the results
was supported by the logical consistency of the constructs
and, therefore, the possibility that these results were
obtained by chance alone was not considered tenable.
These findings provided reciprocal evidence of construct
validity for both the Consideration and the Affiliation,
Nurturance, and Aggression variables. This investigator
conducted an extensive search of the literature seeking
evidence from independent research which would either
support or question the generality of this finding. The
fact that no studies were found which employed both the
Initiating Structure and Consideration variables and the
EPPS variables indicated that this study was somewhat
unique. However, this also meant that the question of the
generality of the findings in the present study would have
to be answered by conducting further research beyond the
scope of the present study. The results for the Consider
ation- Achievement relationships were also statistically
84
T A B L E 24
MEANS FOR CONSIDERATION GROUPS ON E P P S MEASURES
Consideration
Variable Orijcrinal S c a l e F actor Scale
(1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3)
Low Mod. High Low Mod. High
Edwards PPS
A chievem ent 17. 05 15. 65 1 6 . 39a 16. 96 15. 85 16.49

A ff i l ia t i o n 13. 15 13. 70 14.60° 12. 87 14. 02 14.33°
N u rtu r a n c e 11. 96 13. 32 13. 22 11. 58 13. 26 13. 3 5 a,c
A ggression 12. 51 13. 46 1 1 . 95b 13. 01 13. 10 1 1 . 77 b
Notes:
S a m p l e f r o m c l a s s of 1970 (N = 304). F o r E P P S m e a s u r e s
N = 241 (the n u m b e r of Ss in the p r e s e n t s a m p l e who w e r e a l s o in
the r a n d o m s a m p l e of t h is c l a s s who w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d the E P P S
upon t h e i r a r r i v a l at the USAFA).
V a r i a b l e s w e r e o m i t t e d f r o m this table if t h e r e w e r e no
m eaningful trends or s ta tis tic a lly significant d ifferen ces between
groups.
A l l p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l s b a s e d on_t v a l u e s adjusted for uneq ual

v a r i a n c e s wh en a p p ro p ria te .
a = 1-2 p i . 0 5
b = 2-3 p < . 0 5
c = 1- 3 p < . 05
85
significant. Therefore, with regard to the specific ques

tion about whether individuals expressing different leader
ship opinions would differ on independent measures of per
sonality variables, the results supported an affirmative
answer to that question.
The results of the comparison of the EPPS Change v a r
iable with the leadership opinion "Change" variable were
not statistically significant. In view of the extremely
high "face validity" of the items comprising the factor-
derived "Change" dimension there was no obvious or defen
sible explanation for this result. The additional re
search which would be required to arrive at a possible ex
planation was beyond the scope of the present study.
Therefore, no supportable explanation is offered for the
lack of a significant relationship between the two Change
v ariables.
This concludes the presentation of the results. The
Summary and general conclusions are presented in the next
chapter.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A review of the literature on test validation and se

lection research showed that little improvement in the
level of predictive accuracy has been made since 1928 when
Clark Hull stated that validity coefficients of about .50
represented the maximum efficiency obtainable at that time.
The recent literature reflects a growing dissatisfaction
with the level of predictive accuracy obtained using tra
ditional correlational models derived from classical psy
chometric theory. Increased attention has recently been
devoted to modified prediction models which are not based
on the assumptions of classical psychometric theory. The
moderator model is one of the modified models which has
shown some evidence of improving predictive accuracy by
identifying homogeneous subgroups of individuals for whom
the previously employed predictors yield differential pre
dictive validities.
Since this study was designed to evaluate the utility
of a moderator model for predicting leadership effective
ness, an extensive search of the literature on modified
prediction models and on the prediction of leadership was
conducted. The investigator also had access to some un
published studies on moderator models and on the prediction
of leadership effectiveness. While no claim is made that
the coverage of the literature was complete, only a few
86
87
studies were found which employed moderator models in the
prediction of leadership (or managerial) success. There
is an abundance of literature on leadership theory and a
large number of studies on the prediction of leadership ef
fectiveness have been conducted. The review of the litera
ture in this area focused on role expectations as predic
tors of leadership effectiveness because the variables used
as predictors and experimental moderators in this study
were the opinions of the subjects concerning what consti
tutes ideal role behavior for a leader. Because a Leader
ship Opinion Questionnaire developed at The Ohio State Uni
versity was used to assess the opinions of the subjects, a
review of the studies employing this instrument was conduc
ted. In 1966, Korman published a comprehensive review of
studies using the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire vari
ables, Initiating Structure and Consideration. The studies
reported measures of the concurrent and predictive vali
dity of the leadership opinion variables in terms of var
ious organizational criteria, including leadership effec
tiveness. Because of the generally low and nonsignificant
correlations reported in most of the studies reviewed by
Korman, he recommended that the effect of situational m o d
erators on the leadership opinion variables be explored.
None of the studies reviewed had used the leadership opin
ion variables, Initiating Structure and Consideration, as
moderator variables. The present investigator reviewed a
fairly large number of published and unpublished studies
which were not cited in Korman*s review. None of these
studies had used the leadership opinion variables as
88
moderators to explore the possibility that the scores on

the Initiating Structure and Consideration variables would
identify individuals for whom other predictor variables
yield differential predictive validities.
Thus, the present study was formulated to evaluate the
utility of the leadership opinion variables, Initiating
Structure and Consideration, as moderators. For compari
son, these variables were also used as predictors in the
traditional sense.
Problem

utility of a moderator prediction model as compared to a
traditional prediction model for the prediction of leader
ship effectiveness. The secondary purpose was to evaluate
and compare the utility of leadership role expectations as
predictors of leadership effectiveness when used in tradi
tional correlational and multiple regression models, and
when used as moderator variables in a moderator model.
Research was also conducted to answer the two questions
stated following the presentation of the hypotheses.
The specific problem investigated was the prediction
of the leadership effectiveness of cadets at the United
States Air Force Academy (USAF ACADEMY). The Air Force
conducts a continuing program of research to improve the
system used for selecting cadets for appointment to the
Air Force Academy. The prediction of academic achievement
at the Air Force Academy has reached a generally
89
acceptable level of accuracy. However, the prediction of

leadership effectiveness has not reached the desired level
of accuracy and the recent research conducted by the Air
Force has focused on the development of experimental test
batteries for improving the prediction of leadership ef
fectiveness. Thus, this study attempted to make a contri
bution to the development of psychometric theory by adding
to the small body of empirical research on the utility of
moderator models as compared to classical prediction
models. In terms of practical utility, the results of this
research provided evidence that the use of modified predic
tion models may provide a method of improving the predic
tion and selection system currently used at the USAF A c a
demy. Thus, the results of this study are of both theo
retical and practical significance.
Hypotheses and Questions
Of the three hypotheses evaluated in this study, the

first was based on the rationale and assumptions of the
classical prediction model. Hypothesis II was formulated
to evaluate the utility of leadership role expectations
as moderator variables to identify homogeneous subgroups
for whom the standard Air Force Academy predictor vari
ables have differential predictive validities. The evalua
tion of hypotheses I and II provided a comparison of the
utility of a moderator model with the utility of a classi
cal prediction model for predicting the leadership effec
tiveness of USAF Academy cadets. Hypothesis III was
90
formulated to see if the moderator variables identified

from testing hypothesis II would "hold-up" when used in
a double-cross validation design with two independent
samples. The rationale for the two supplemental questions
is implicit in the statement of the questions.
Hypothesis I . The leadership opinion variables, Ini

tiating Structure and Consideration, correlate positively
with leadership success and increase the predictability
of leadership success above the level of accuracy obtained
using only the standard U. S. Air Force Academy predictor
variables. .
Hypothesis I I . The use of the leadership opinion
variables, Initiating Structure and Consideration, as mod
erators identifies subgroups of individuals for whom the
standard Academy predictors yield differential predictive
validities.
Hypothesis I I I . The derivation of separate predic
tion equations for each subgroup established on the basis
of scores on the moderator variables, Initiating Structure
and Consideration, enhances the predictive power of the
standard Academy predictors when these equations are used
with equivalent subgroups upon cross-validation.
Question I . Were the two original dimensions of the
Leadership Opinion Questionnaire, Initiating Structure and
Consideration, factorially pure when used with the U. S.
A i r Force Academy cadet samples, and if not, what other
meaningful factors would emerge from a factor analysis?
91
Question I I . Would individuals expressing different
leadership opinions differ on independent measures of per
sonality variables and/or scores obtained on the standard
U. S. Air Force Academy predictor and criterion variables?
In addition, would differences on selected personality
variables provide evidence of construct validity for the
factor derived Initiating Structure, Consideration, and
Change variables?
Method
Subjects for this study were obtained from a random

sample of two different classes of U. S. Air Force Academy
cadets enrolled in required courses in psychology. The
sample from the freshman class contained 304 of the 904
cadets remaining out of an entering class of 1030. The
sample from the sophomore class contained 288 of the 810
cadets remaining out of an entering class of 1035. The
freshman class was selected from a group of 3728 qualified
candidates, and the sophomore class was selected from a
group of 4709 qualified candidates.
The three major categories of data used for evaluating
the hypotheses were: (a) the opinions of the subjects
regarding what constitutes ideal role behavior for Air
Force leaders or supervisors, (b) the subjects' scores on
the previously validated predictors used in the present Air
Force Academy prediction and selection model, and (c) the
independent measure of the leadership effectiveness of the
subjects. As previously stated, the leadership role ex
pectations of the subjects were assessed with the
Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. The two dimensions of
the questionnaire, Initiating Structure and Consideration,
were used as the predictors (Hypothesis I) and as the ex
perimental moderator variables (Hypotheses II and II I ) .
These dimensions were confirmed by the factor analysis
(Question I) which also identified a third factor re
ferred to as a Change dimension. The Change variable was
used along with factor derived Initiating Structure and
Consideration scales in the analysis conducted for Question
II. The additional data used for the analysis for Question
II consisted of the scores obtained by part of the fresh
man sample on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
(EPPS). A total of 241 of the 304 cadets in the sample
from the freshman class were administered the EPPS upon
their arrival at the U. S. Air Force Academy. The data
for the standard USAFA predictor and selection variables
were available from the tests administered to the candi
dates at the time they applied for an appointment to the
USAF Academy. The independent measure of the leadership
effectiveness of the subjects was the Military Rating.
The Military Rating is used by the USAF Academy to assess
the leadership potential of the cadets. This measure is a
composite of three independent ratings made by: (a) peers
in a cadet's own academic class, (b) upperclassmen in the
cadet's chain of command, and (c) the commissioned officer
responsible for the cadet's military training. The Mili
tary Ratings were made approximately five months after the
leadership opinions of the subjects were assessed. This
93
time interval was necessary because the objective of the

study was to obtain measures of the predictive validity
of the leadership opinion variables, Initiating Structure
and Consideration, when used as predictors and/or modera
tors in the prediction of leadership effectiveness.
Two basic experimental designs were used to compare
the utility of classical and moderator models for the p r e
diction of leadership effectiveness. Hypothesis I was
evaluated by using the leadership opinion variables, Ini
tiating Structure ("S") and Consideration ("C"), as ex
perimental predictor variables with the standard USAF
Academy predictor of leadership effectiveness, the Lead
ership Composite. Traditional correlational and multiple
linear regression models were used to obtain validity
coefficients for each sample and a comparison was made of
the predictive validities obtained by including and exclud
ing t h e ;"S" and "C" variables in the analysis.
Hypothesis II was evaluated by using the "S" and "C"
variables as experimental moderators in a moderator model.
The subjects were divided into subgroups based on their
scores on the "S" and "C" variables. The three methods of
establishing subgroups were: (a) division based on low,
moderate, or high scores on the individual "S" and "C"
variables, (b) division based on scores above and below
the standard score mean for each of the "S" and "C" vari
ables, and (c) division based on the standard deviations
of the scores on both the "S" and "C" variables. This
method of classification provided low, moderate, and high
subgroups; for example, the subjects who obtained scores
greater than one standard deviation above the standard
score means on both the "S" and "C" variables were classi
fied as the "greater than 1 S. D." subgroup. These meth
ods of subgrouping were used for both samples and the an
alysis of possible moderating effects was performed sepa
rately for each sample. The data used for the analysis
were the means, standard deviations, and validity coeffi
cients for the standard USAF Academy predictor (the Lead
ership Composite) of the criterion of leadership effective
ness (the Military R a t i n g ) . The validity coefficients are
the Pearson product moment correlations between the Lead
ership Composite scores and the Military Ratings. The
Pearson product moment r ?s were transformed to Fisher z/s
and two-tailed tests of the significance of the differen
ces between the independent correlations obtained for the
different subgroups were conducted. Where appropriate,
t. tests (two-tailed) were performed to test the signifi
cance of differences between the means of the extreme
groups (low and high) on the Leadership Composite, and/or
the Military Rating. A separate multiple linear regres
sion analysis was also performed for each of the subgroups
and the results were inspected for evidence of differential
predictive validities between subgroups.
Hypothesis III was evaluated by using the unique pre
diction equations obtained from the regression analysis
performed for each of the subgroups in one sample to pre
dict the criterion scores of the subjects in equivalent
95
subgroups in the other sample, and vice versa. The results
of this double-cross validation were analyzed by computing
the Pearson product moment correlations between the pre
dicted and actual Military Rating scores of the subjects in
each of the subgroups. The Pearson product moment r's were
transformed to Fisher z's, and two-tailed tests of the sig
nificance of differences between the correlations obtained
for the different subgroups were performed.
The answer to Question I was sought by performing a
factor analysis of the responses of the subjects to the
forty original items on the Leadership Opinion Question
naire. A standard computer program, the BMD03M, was used
to perform a principal component solution and an orthog
onal rotation of the factor matrix. The factor analysis
was conducted separately for each sample to provide a check
on the consistency of the factors and the factor loadings
across the two independent samples. Items having reason
ably high loadings on the principal factor across both
samples were further examined for their independence in
terms of the loadings on the other factors. Items having
these characteristics were used for an analysis and com
parison of the internal consistency of the factor derived
scales and the original scales. Internal consistency was
evaluated by two measures: (a) Cronbach's (1951) coe
fficient alpha, which is a generalization of Kuder and
Richardson's (1937) Formula 20, and (b) Scott's (1952)
Homogeneity Ratio which is a weighted average interitem
correlation. Both of these measures reflect the degree to
96
which the several items within a scale measure the same
variable; alpha depends substantially on test length,
while the Homogeneity Ratio is independent of the number
of items in a scale.
The answer to Question II was sought by examining the
relationship between the subjects' scores on the Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule and scores on: (a) the ori
ginal and factor-derived leadership opinion variables,
(b) the standard USAF Academy predictor and selection vari
ables, and (c) the standard USAF Academy criterion vari
ables ( the Military Rating and the Grade Point A v e r a g e ) .
A one-way analysis of variance was performed with the lead
ership opinions (Initiating Structure, Consideration, and
the factor-derived Change variable) as the independent
variables. The subjects were divided into low, moderate,
and high categories (levels) on the basis of their scores
on two original and three factor-derived leadership opin
ion variables. The large number of comparisons involved
in this analysis made it possible for some statistically
significant results to occur due to chance alone. There
fore, where statistically significant results were indica
ted, the constructs represented by the variables were ex
amined for evidence of a logical relationship before a
final interpretation of the results was made.
Results and Discussion
The various criteria used in evaluating the results

of studies employing modified prediction models were dis
cussed in Chapter II. The three criteria used for
evaluating the results of the moderator model analysis
in the present study are discussed before the results are
presented. First, in testing the hypotheses the .05 level
was used as a criterion of statistical significance and,
unless otherwise indicated, all probability levels reported
here refer to two-tailed tests of significance. Second,
the data were examined for evidence of differential pre
dictive validities between moderated subgroups as reflected
by the trends of the differences between the means on the
standard predictor (Leadership Composite) and criterion
(Military Rating) variables, and by the trends of the dif
ferences between the correlations for these variables.
Differences on these measures were interpreted as evidence
that the moderator variables were identifying individuals
for whom the standard predictor variables were differen
tially effective in prediction of the criterion of leader
ship effectiveness. Such evidence would indicate that the
standard predictors incorrectly predicted the criterion
scores of the individuals in the subgroups when the ori
ginal prediction was made using the total sample in the
traditional prediction and selection model. Third, from a
practical standpoint, the results were evaluated in terms
of whether the use of the moderator model enhanced the
level of predictive validity obtained for one or more of
the moderated subgroups above that obtained using the trad
itional prediction model. Finally, it should be noted that
no attempt was made to estimate the unrestricted correla
tions by correcting for the restriction of range present
in the cadet sample in comparison with the total group of
candidates. This restriction of range affects the
98
interpretation of the results of all of the statistical

tests employed in the analysis. However, it was not
possible to estimate the unrestricted results because the
assumptions necessary to apply such a correction were not
met due to the complexity of the criteria used in the Air
Force Academy selection process.
Hypothesis I . None of the Pearson product moment

correlations between the leadership opinion variables, Ini
tiating Structure and Consideration, and the Military Rat
ings are significantly greater than zero (.05 level of sig
nificance, one-tailed test). The differences between the
2
R 1s obtained from including versus excluding the leader
ship opinion variables in two separate regression analy
ses were not statistically significant. The results for
the regression analysis for the freshman class showed that
the Initiating Structure and Consideration variables did
not enter the regression equation until the sixth and
eighth steps, respectively, and provided only a slight in-
2
crease in the R . For the sophomore class, the Initiating
Structure and Consideration variables did not enter the re
gression equation until the seventh and sixth steps, re
spectively, and again provided only a slight increase in
2
the R . Thus, the evidence showed that the leadership opin
ion variables did not make a significant contribution to
the prediction of the criterion of leadership effectiveness
when these variables were employed as experimental predic
tors in traditional correlational and multiple linear
regression models.
Hypothesis I I . For this hypothesis, the leadership
opinion variables, Initiating Structure and Consideration,
were used as experimental moderator variables. The results
provided some evidence that these variables had identified
subgroups of individuals for whom the standard USAF Academy
predictor yielded differential predictive validities. Al
though none of the differences between the correlations
for the standard predictor and criterion variables’ were
significantly greater than zero, some definite trends were
apparent from an examination of the correlations and the
means of the various subgroups. The results obtained with
the Initiating Structure variable showed a definite trend
toward increased predictive validity from the low groups
to the high groups and this trend was generally consistent
across both samples. In terms of practical utility, the
square of the coefficient of correlation for the Initiating
Structure subgroups from the sophomore sample showed that
the Leadership Composite was a more accurate predictor for
2 2
the high group (r = .167) than for the low group (r =
.090). For the freshman sample, the Leadership Composite
was also a better predictor for the high Initiating Struc-
2 2
ture subgroup (r = .260) than for the low group (r =
.185). In contrast with these findings, the analysis
conducted for the subgroups on the Consideration variable
did not produce any statistically significant differences
between the correlations for the subgroups and there was
no consistent pattern of differential predictive validities
across the two samples. Although the difference between
the mean scores on the Military Ratings for the sophomore
sample was statistically significant (p<.02) with the high
Consideration groups having the better ratings, this find
ing was not replicated with the sample from the freshman
class. The fact that the freshman class had less exposure
to military leadership and less opportunity to engage in
leadership activities may have influenced the results ob
tained for the freshman class. However, the findings for
the Consideration variable used as a moderator do not sup
port the hypothesis. The third method of subgrouping to
evaluate Hypothesis II classified the subjects on the
basis of their scores on both the Initiating Structure
and Consideration dimensions. For the sophomore sample,
the difference between the means on the Military Ratings
was highly significant (t = 2.71, 38df, p<.005, one
tailed test) with the high groups having the best ratings
on the leadership measure. The same trend (t = 1.08,
40df, p<.07) toward better Military Ratings from the low
to the high Initiating Structure and Consideration groups
appeared in the sample from the freshman class. These
results provide support for the Hypothesis II and, in
addition, the finding that subjects with high scores on
both leadership opinion dimensions received the best lead
ership ratings was consistent with the findings of prev
ious research employing these variables ("S" and "C").
In interpreting these results, the small sample size in
the extreme subgroups should be noted as well as the fact
that the freshman class had less opportunity to engage in
leadership activities than did the sophomore group.
101
Hypothesis III. This hypothesis was evaluated by em

ploying a double cross validation design to determine if
the moderating effects identified in the analysis of H y
pothesis II would "hold up” on cross validation. For the
Initiating Structure moderator groups, none of the differ
ences between the correlations (uncorrected for restriction
of range) of the standard predictor and criterion variables
were statistically significant. However, there was a con
sistent pattern of enhanced predictive validities for the
high Structure groups across both samples. Differential
practical utility was indicated by a comparison of the pro
portion of the criterion variance accounted for by the pre
dictors. For the Class of 1969 (sophomore), the proportion
2
for the high group (r = .165) was double that for the low
2
group (r = .079). For the Class of 1970 (freshman), the
differences were somewhat less, but in the same direction
2 2
(high group, r = .224, versus the low group, r = .169).
These findings provide for support for the hypothesis, and
in contrast to many of the findings reported for moderator
models, the Initiating Structure variable "held up" on
cross-validation. In contrast, the attempt to double-cross
validate using the Consideration variable as the moderator
failed to produce any significant results.
Question I . The results of the factor analysis con
firmed the relevance of the two original leadership opinion
variables, "S" and "C," for use with both USAF Academy
samples and a third factor identified as a "Change" vari
able was identified. The internal consistency of the
102
shorter, factor-derived scales was greater than that of the
original twenty-item scales. Also, the factor-derived
"S" and "C" scales showed greater independence than did the
original scales.
Question I I . This question asked whether individuals
expressing different leadership opinions would differ on
independent measures of personality variables and/or scores
obtained on the standard USAF Academy predictor and cri
terion variables, and whether the differences on selected
personality variables would provide evidence of construct
validity for the original Initiating Structure and Consid
eration dimensions and for the factor-derived Initiating
Structure, Consideration, and "Change" dimensions. The
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) was used for
the independent personality measures. The results of the
one-way analysis of variance showed that statistically
significant differences between subgroups existed for the
following Initiating Structure-EPPS variables: Order,
Succorance, Endurance, and Heterosexuality. For the Con-
sideration-EPPS Analysis, statistically significant dif
ferences between subgroups existed for the Achievement,
Affiliation, Nurturance, and Aggression variables. Most
of these relationships were expected due to the similarity
of the constructs represented by the leadership opinion
dimensions and the EPPS variables. The factor-derived
leadership opinion Change variable did not show any stat
istically significant relationship with the Change vari
able on the E P P S . In view of the extremely high "face
validity" of the items comprising the leadership opinion
103
Change scale, it was difficult for the investigator to a r
rive at a defensible explanation for the lack of a signi
ficant relationship between the two Change variables. The
forced-choice response format of the EPPS may have caused
the EPPS Change measures to be less sensitive than the
single-stimulus items used for the leadership opinion
Change scale. Secondly, although the forced-choice format
of the EPPS is designed to control for the social desir
ability of the responses, it is possible that at the time
the EPPS was administered to the newly appointed cadets,
the subjects attempted to select a socially desirable
response mode. Although some support for these possible
explanations was provided by the results of independent
studies (see Scott, 1968), the additional research re
quired to confirm these explanations as appropriate for
the present findings was beyond the scope of the present '
study. Therefore, the investigator considered these ex
planations as tentative and subject to further research
and analysis. For the relationships between the standard
USAF Academy predictor variables and the leadership opin
ion variables, statistically significant results were ob
tained only with the factor-derived Initiating Structure
variable. The High Initiating Structure groups scored
consistently higher on the selection variables measuring
achievement in academics and activities.
Conclusions
The following conclusions were derived from the re

search and analysis conducted for this study:
104
1. The leadership opinion variables, Initiating
Structure and Consideration, did not make a significant
contribution to the prediction of the leadership effec
tiveness of USAF Academy cadets when employed as-experi
mental predictors in traditional correlational and multiple
linear regression models. This finding was generally con
sistent with the results of independent studies employing
these variables. Although a few of these studies reported
significant predictive and concurrent validities, most of
the correlations between these variables and various cri
teria of leadership effectiveness were in the low to mod
erate range.
2. When the leadership opinion variables were used as
experimental moderators in a moderator model, the Initia
ting Structure subgroups showed evidence of differential
predictive validities and support for the practical utility
of the differential predictability was provided by the
differences in the proportion of the criterion variance
accounted for by the standard predictor for the various
subgroups. The results for the subgroups established on
the basis of the Consideration variable scores were not
significant. The results for subgroups established on the
basis of combinations of scores on both the Initiating
Structure and Consideration variables were statistically
significant. The finding that subjects who scored high on
both of these variables had the best ratings on leadership
effectiveness (the Military Rating) was generally consis
tent with the results obtained by independent studies em
ploying these variables.
105
3. The moderating efficiency of the Initiating Struc
ture variable was confirmed by the results of the double
cross-validation analysis. This result was hoped for but
not expected because the findings of independent studies
show that moderator variables identified on a concurrent
or predictive validity basis usually fail to "hold up" on
cross-validation attempts. The cross-validation analysis
using the Consideration variable as the experimental mod
erator failed to produce significant results.
4. The results of the factor analysis confirmed the
relevance of the twooriginal leadership opinion variables,
Initiating Structure and Consideration, for use with USAF
Academy cadet samples. The factor analysis also identified
a third factor or dimension which was obviously a measure
of opinions on "Change." No previous studies could be
found which reported a similar finding.
5. The results of the factor analysis showed that
the internal consistency of the shorter, factor-derived
scales was greater than that of the original twenty-item
scales and that the factor-derived scales had greater in
dependence than did the original scales.
6. The results of the supplemental research showed
that individuals expressing different leadership opinions
differed on independent measures of personality. Individ
uals who responded with different leadership opinions also
differed on scores they obtained on the standard USAF pre
dictor and selection variables.
In summary, the results cited in conclusions 1, 2, 3,
106
and 6 provide support for a general conclusion that the
leadership opinion variables are effective as moderator
variables in this research setting. Further, the results
of the present study and one other independent study
(Brown, 1965) which used life history items as moderators
for prediction of academic achievement of USAF Academy
cadets indicate that further research on the utility of
modified prediction models for enhancing predictive vali
dities in the USAF Academy prediction and selection system
is justified. The generality of the moderating efficiency
of the leadership opinion variables, or leadership role
expectations, should be explored in other research set
tings .
APPENDIX A
LEADERSHIP OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE
107
108
APPENDIX A
LEADERSHIP OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE1
From LEADERSHIP OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE by Edwin A. Fleish- '

man. c!960, Science Research Associates, Inc. Reprinted
by permission of the publisher.
Instructions for Completing USAFA Form 0-602: Use the mark ■
sense pencil to complete the following identification items:
Section Number, Department and Course No., Test Date, and
Control Number. NOTE: Do not put your name on the answer
sheet. Individual replies will be kept confidential and
will be used for research purposes only.
Instructions for Completing the Questionnaire; The ques
tionnaire contains a list of items that may be used to
describe the leadership behavior of Air Force supervisors
or leaders. ’ For each item, choose the alternative which
most nearly expresses your opinion on how frequently or to
what extent an ideal Air Force supervisor or leader should
do what is expressed by the statement. This is not a test
of ability and there are no right or wrong answers. We are
interested only in your opinions on how an ideal Air Force
supervisor or leader should act.
For each item there are five possible alternatives. Se
lect only one alternative for each item and mark the letter
on the answer sheet which corresponds to the alternative
you select for that item.
1. Put the welfare of your unit above the welfare of any

person in it.
A = Always B = Often £ = Occasionally D = Seldom
E = Never
2. Give in to your subordinates in discussions with them.
^11 items used the response format shown for item 1.

109
3. Encourage after-duty work by persons of your unit.
4. Try out your own ideas in the unit.
5. Back up what persons under you do.
6. Criticize poor work.
7. Ask for more than the persons under you can accomplish.
8 . Refuse to compromise a point.
9. Insist that persons under you follow to the letter

those standard routines handed down to you.
10 . Help persons under you with their personal problems.
11 . Be slow to adopt new ideas.
12 . Get the approval of persons under you on important

matters before going ahead.
13. Resist changes in ways of doing things.
14. Assign persons under you to particular tasks.
15. Speak in a manner not to be questioned.
16. Stress importance of being ahead of other units.
17. Criticize a specific act rather than a particular
member of your unit.
18. Let the persons under you do their work the way they
think is best.
19. Do personal favors for persons under you.
20 . Emphasize meeting of deadlines.
21 . Insist that you be informed on decisions made by per
sons under you.
22. Offer new approaches to problems.
23. Treat all persons under you as your equals.
24. Be willing to make changes.
no
25. Talk about how much should be done.
26. Wait for persons in your unit to push new ideas..

27. Rule with an iron hand.
28. Reject suggestions for changes.
29. Change the duties of persons under you without first
talking it over with them.
30. Decide in detail what shall be done and how it shall
be done by the persons under you.
31. See to it that persons under you are working up to
capacity.
32. Stand up for persons under you, even though it makes
you unpopular with others.
33. Put suggestions made by persons in the unit into
operation.
34. Refuse to explain your actions.
35. Ask for sacrifices from persons under you for the good
of the entire unit.
36. Act without consulting persons under you.
37. "Needle" persons under you for greater effort.
38. Insist that everything be done your way.
39. Encourage slow-working persons in your unit to work
harder.
40. Meet with the persons in your unit at certain regu
larly scheduled times.
APPENDIX B
INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG
THIRTY-THREE VARIABLES
(See f o l d e r i n s i d e back cover)
111
112
REFERENCES
B a n a s , P. M. An investigation of transtuational moder

ators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer
sity of Minnesota, 1964. Cited in R. Hobart and
M. D. Dunnette, "Development of moderator variables
to managerial effectiveness," Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1967, 51, (1), p. 52.
Biesheuvel, S. Personnel selection. Annual Review of

Psychology, 1965, 16, 295-324.
Bonner, H. Group dynamics, principles and applications.

New York: Ronald Press, 1959.
Bottenberg, R. A., 6c Ward, J. H., Jr. Applied multiple

linear regression. Lackland Air Force Base, Texas:
Air Force Systems Command, 1963 (AD No. 413128)
Technical Documentary Report PRL-TDR-63-6).
Brown, 0. Differential utility of personal preferences

as moderators in the prediction of leadership. Paper
delivered at Rocky Mountain Psychological Association,
1968.
Brown, 0. A comparison and interpretation of differences

between a service Academy sample and the collegiate
normative sample on the Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule. A paper presented at the Rocky Mountain
Psychological Assocation, Denver, May, 1968.
Brown, 0. Differential utility of an antecedent inven

tory for regression and moderator models in academic
prediction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pur
due University, 1965.
Browne, C. G. & . Cohn, T. S. (Eds.) The study of leader

s h i p . Danville, 111: Interstate Printers and Pub
lishers, 21958, (BF 637 .L4 B 8 7 ) .
113
Buros, 0. K. (Ed.) The sixth mental measurements year

b o o k . New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1965.
Christal, R. E . , 6c Krumboltz, J. D. Prediction of first

semester criteria at the Air Force A c a d e m y . AFPTRC-
TN-57-17, AD-098 920. Lackland AFB, Texas: Air Force
Personnel and Training Research Center, January, 1957.
Creager, J. A. & Miller, R. E. Predicting achievement of

cadets in their first year at the Air Force A c a d e m y ,
class of 1 9 6 1 . WADD-TN-60-42, AD-238 088. Lackland
AFB, Texas: Personnel Laboratory, Wright Air Develop
ment Division, March 1960.
Creager, J. A. & Miller, R. E. Summary of regression

analyses in the prediction of leadership criteria.
Air Force Academy classes or 1961 through 1963. ASD-
TN-61-41, AD-263 979. Lackland AFB, Texas: Person
nel Laboratory, Aeronautical Systems Division, April,
1961.
Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal struc

ture of tests. Psychometrica, 1951, _16, 297-334.
D a v i s , K. Human relations at w o r k : The dynamics of or

ganizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Dixon, W. J. (Ed.) BMP Biomedical computer programs.

Los Angeles: University of California, Health
Sciences Computing Facility, School of Medicine,
1964.
Dunnette, M. D. A modified model for test validation and

selection research. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1963, 47, 317-323.
Dunnette, M. D. Personnel selection and placement. Bel

mont, California: Wadsworth, 1966.
Edwards, A. L. Edwards personal preference schedule. New

York: Psychological Corporation, 1953.
114
Edwards, A. L. The social desirability variable in per
sonality assessment and research. New York: Dryden
Press, 1957, 4, 13.
Fiedler, F. E. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New

York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Fleishman, E. A. The leadership opinion questionnaire.

In R. M. Stogdill 6c A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leadership
behavior: Its description and measurement. Colum
bus, Ohio: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business
Research Monograph No. 88, 1957, 120-133.
Fleishman, E. A. Manual for leadership opinion question

naire. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc.,
1960, p. 3.
Ghiselli, E. E. The prediction of predictability. Edu

cational and psychological measurement, 1960, 20, 3-8.
Ghiselli, E. E. The measurement of occupational aptitude.

Berkeley: University of California Press. 1955.
Cited by M. D. Dunnette, A modified model for test
validation and selection research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1963, 47 (5), p. 317.
Ghiselli, E. E. Moderating effects and differential re

liability and validity. Journal of Applied Psychol
o g y , 1963, 47, 81-86.
Gross, N . , Mason, W. S. 6c M c E a c h e m , Explorations in role

analysis. New York: John Wiley 6c Sons, 1958.
Guetzkow, H. 6c Forehand, G. A. A research strategy for

partial knowledge useful in the selection of execu
tives . In R. Taguiri (Ed.) Research needs in ex
ecutive selection, Boston: Harvard Graduate School
of Business Administration, 1961. Cited by R. H o
bart and M. D. Dunnette, Development of moderator
variables to enhance the prediction of managerial
effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967,
51, (1), p. 50.
115
Guion, R. Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psych

ology, 1967, 18, 191-216.
Haas, J. E. Role conception and group consensus. Colum

bus Ohio: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business
Research Monograph No. 117, 1964.
Halpin, A. W. The leader behavior and effectiveness of

aircraft commanders. In Stogdill, R. M. and Coons,
A. F. (Eds.) Leader behavior: Its description
and measurement. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Uni
versity Bureau of Business Research Monograph, No.
8 8 , pp. 52-64, 1957.
Heckman, I. L., Jr., 6c Huneryager, S. G. (Eds.) Human

relations in management. (2nd ed.) Cincinnati:
South-Western, 1967.
Hobart, R . , & Dunnette, M. D. Development of moderator

variables to enhance the prediction of managerial
- effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967,
51, (1), 50-64.
Hull, C. L. Aptitude testing. Yonkers, New York: World

Book, 1928. Cited by M. D. Dunnette, A modified mod
el for test validation and selection research. Jour
nal of Applied Psychology. 1963, 47_, (5), p. 317.
Kaiser, H. F. Computer program for verimax rotation in

factor analysis. Educational and Psychological M e a
surement, 1959, 19, (3).
Kaiser, H. F. The verimax criterion for analytic rotation

in factor analysis. Psychometrilca, 1958, _23, (3).
Kaats, G. R. 6c Thompson, E. A. The use of Air Academy

cadets for the validation of personality scales.
Presented at the American Psychological Association
and reprinted in the proceedings, 76th Annual Con
vention, American Psychological Association, 1968,
637-638.
116
Ketchum, E. L. The effectiveness of two methods for using

moderator variables in multiple prediction. (Submit
ted to Educational and Psychological Measurement).
Cited by R. M. Guion. Personnel selection, Annual
Review of Psychology, 1967, 18_, p. 204.
Korman, A. K. "Consideration," "Initiating structure,"

and organizational criteria--a review. Personnel
Psychology, 1966, 19_, 349-361.
Krumboltz, J. D. 6c Christal, R. E. Predictive validities

for first-year criteria at the Air Force Academy.
AFPRTC-TN-60-37, A D - 238 791. Lackland AFB, Texas:
Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center,
July, 1957.
Lang, K. Military organizations. Chapter 20 in Handbook

of Organizations, J. March (Ed.) Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1965.
Miller, R. E. Predicting achievement of cadets in their

first two years at the Air Force A c a d e m y . WADD-TN-
60-37, AD-238 791. Lackland AFB, Texas: Personnel
Laboratory, Wright Air Development Division, Jan
uary (I960). (a).

first year at the Air Force A c a d e m y , class of 1960.
WADD-TN-60-41, AD-238 792. Lackland AFB, Texas:
Personnel Laboratory, Wright Air Development Divi
sion, March 1960. (b).

first year at the Air Force Academy, class of 1963.
ASD-TN-61-45, AD-263 980. Lackland AFB, Texas:
Personnel Laboratory, Aeronautical Systems Division,
May, 1961.
Miller, R. E. Predicting first year achievement of Air

Force Academy Cadets, class of 1964. PRL-TDR-64-18,
AD-448 480. Lackland AFB, Texas: Personnel Research
Laboratory, Aerospace Medical Division, July, 1964,
(a) .
117

Force Academy Cadets, class of 1965. PRL-TR-64-23,
Laboratory, Aerospace Medical Division, August, 1964.
.(b).

Force Academy Cadets , class of 1966. PRL-TR*^65-21,
Laboratory, Aerospace Medical Division, December,
1965.

Force Academy Cadets, class of 1967. Lackland AFB,
Texas: Personnel Research Laboratory, Aerospace
Medical Division, November, 1966.
Mitchell, V. F., & Porter, L. W. Comparative managerial

role perceptions in military and business hierarchies.
1967, 51, (6) 449-452.
Moorman, T. S. Leadership development at the Air Force

Academy. Personnel Administration, 1967, Nov-Dee.,
30-34.
Newport, G. A study of attitudes and leader behavior.

Personnel Administration, 1967, 30-34.
Porter, L. W. Personnel management. Annual Review of

Psychology, 1966, 1/7, 395-422.
Scott, W. A. Validities on forced choice and single

stimulus tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 7 0 ,
(4), 231-244.
Scott, W. A., & Wertheimer, M. Introduction to psycho-

logical research: New York: Wiley, 1962, 139-140;
150-152.
Snedecor, G. W. Statistical methods. (5th Ed.) Ames,

Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1956. Citation
from pp. 434-435.
118
Stogdill, R. M. Personal factors associated with lead

ership: A survey of the literature. Journal of
Psychology, 1948, 2 35-71.
5 ,
Stogdill, R. M. Leadership, membership, and organization.

Psychological Bulletin, 1950, 47, 1-14.
Stogdill, R. M . , Scott, E. L . , 6c Jaynes, W. E. Leadership

and role expectations. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State
University, Bureau of Business Research Monograph
No. 86, 1956.
Stogdill, R. M. Individual behavior and group achievement.

New York: Oxford University Press, 1959.
Thorndike, R. L. Personnel selection: Test and measure

ment techniques. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1949.
Citations from p. 203 and pp. 169-176.
Tannenbaum, R . , Weschler, I., & Massarick, F. Leadership

and organization. New York: McGraw Hill, 1960.
U. S. Air Force Academy. Annual report of the superin

tendent , fiscal year 1967.
U. S. Air Force Academy. Selection data, class of 1969;

ACD-T3.
U. S. Air Force Academy. Selection d a t a , class of 1970;

AC D - T 3 .
appendix b
job number i
INTtHCBRRFLAKoNS FOR T3» MR, fiPfl, 15 EPPS, LOO S + C> FACTOR S,C,CHG
SUBJECTS VARIABLES NFMT NTP BINARY PUNCH CORRELATIONS PUNCH MEANS AND SIGMAS NEW FORMAT
W 33 ? «o »n *0 *0 1
SELECT R S *0, MRORABlLlTV LEVELS 2, VARIABLE NAMES 1, TRANSPOSE RAN DATA -0, REUHOER DATA
7 x , 4 F 3 , 0 , l x , F 3 (O , p A lO , 3 F 3 l0 , F A lO , F ti ,l,'FS,5,r4l> / / 6 V , l S r P . O / F 2 . 0 , l ) l > F 2 . O / F 2 i O ,
NOTES
1, At the U, S, Air ‘Force Academy, a low score on the Military Rating (MR) indicates a good evaluation of the leadership
effectiveness of a cadet, Therefore, the signs for the correlations of the other variables with the Military Rating are reversed,
2, Raw scores weê used foi the leadership opinion variables, Initiating Structure, Consideration and the Change dimensions,
3„ Fo, complete definitions of the variables used for this table, see p, 28 for the leadership opinion variables, pp, 34-37
for the U, S, Air Force predictor and criterion variables, and pp, 78-80 for the Edwards P ersonal P reference Schedule variables,
4, Errata: The abbreviation for variable 10 should be LDR CP (Leadership Composite, the standard U, S, Air Force Academy
predictor of leadership effectiveness,'
X#F2,0MX#F2.0)
1 ASTERISKS FOLLOWING CURREL COEF f IN0TCATFS 0,0*0 LFVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE.

THE TABLE BELOW CONTAINS OF AND »P" AS READ IN.
1 0.99 2 0,95 3 O.AR 4 Ml 5 0,75 6 0,71 7 0,67 8 0,63 9 0,60 10 0,58

11 0,55 12 0,53 13 Ml 14 0,58 15 0,48 It 0,47 17 0,46 18 0,44 19 0,43 20 0,42
21 0,41 22 0*40 23 0,40 24 .0,3? 25 0,38 26 0,37 27 0,37 28 0,36 29 0,36 30 0,35
35 0,32 40 0,30 45 0,29 50 0,2/ SO 0,25 n 0,23 80 0,22 90 0,21 100 0,20 150 0,16
1/5 0,15 200 0,14 jOO Ml 400 0,18 *00 0,09 1000 0,06
2 a s t e r i s k s f o l l o w i n g c d r r e l c o e f f I n d i c a t e s o .o i o l f v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e .
THE T a B l E BELOW CONTAINS OF AND »P» AS READ IN.
1 0,99 2 0,99 3 0,96 4 0,92 5 0,87 6 0,83 7 0,80 8 0,76 9 0,74 10 0,71
11 0,68 12 0,66 13 0/4 14 0,6? 15 0,61 16 0,59 17 0,58 18 0,56 19 0,55 20 0,54
21 0,53 22 0,52 23 0,50 24 0,5® 25 0,49 26 0,48 27 0.47 28 0,46 29 0,46 30 0,45
35 0,42 40 0,39 45 0,37 50 0,35 60 0,32 70 0,30 80 0,28 90 0,27 100 0,25 150 0,21
175 0,19 200 0,18 jOO 0,15 400 0,13 *00 0,12 1000 0,06
NUMBER NOW NAME ORIGINAL variable
1 ACAD r 1
2 VB APT 2
3 f n g rp 3
4 M APT 4
5 M ACH 5
6 AC AO‘P 6
7 PHYAE 7
8 athact 8
9 NONAT h 9
10 HRR CP 10
11 SEL CP 11
12 MILRAT 12
13 fiPA 13
14 ACH 14
15 PEF 15
16 PRO 16
17 rXH 17
18 AUT 18
19 AFE 19
20 fNT 20
21 AUC 21
22 POM 22
23 ABA 23
24 NUR 24 '
25 CHG 25
26 fnd 26
27 WET 27
28 AGG 28
29 S LOR 29
30 ? LOR 30
31 * FTR 31
32 f PTR 32
33 CHGFT r 33
CORRELATION MATRIX FUH INTERCORRELATIONS FDR TT, MR» Mb 15 EPPS# LOU $ + C> FACTOR S»CiCHG
SECTION 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
ACAD R IrfBAPT eng CP M APT «1 ACH 1

ICAOGP PHYAE ATHACT NONATH DRR CP SEL CP MILRAT GPA
1 Ac AO R 1.00 o ; n * 0,09 0,05 0,02 0,48+* HO,08 0,02 0,30** 0,13 * 0,43** ■0,21** 0,43**
0. 304, 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 ,
2 VpAPT 0,11 * i;oo 'o.'So** 0,34*+ 0,34** 0,72** •0,05 •0,30** •0,1 0 ■0,22** 6,56** 0,10 0,23**
304 , 0, 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304, 304 , 304, 304, 304 , 304, 304 ,
3 ENG CP 0,09 0 ;56 * * 1,00 0,20** 0 , 2 4 * * 0,64** bO,ll ■ 0 ,2 6 * * • 0 , 0 3 ■0,19** 6,50** 0,09 0,09
304 , 304 , 0. 3 04 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 30 4 , 304 , 304, 304 , 304, 304 ,
4 M APT 0,05 o ; 34** 0,20** 1,00 0 i67** 0,66** • 0 , 0 8 •0,24** •0 ,1 8 * * ■0,25** 6,48** 0,16** 0,26**
304 , 304 , 304 , 0, 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 3 04, 304 , 304 ,
5 M ACH 0,02 0J34** 0,24** 0,57** 1,00 0,69** • 0 , 0 8 •0,27** •0,24** •0,29** 6,48** 0,18** 0,23**
304 , 304 , ’04, 304 , 0, 304 , 304., 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 ,
6 AcADGP 0,48** o;7?** 0 , 6 4 * * 0,46** 0,69** 1,00 :o, 12 * ■ 0 , 3 1 * * •0,05 ■0,23** 0,78** 0,08 0,41**
3 04, 304, 304, 304 , 304 , 0, 304, 3 04, 304, 304 , 304, 30 4 , 304 ,
7 P h YAE •0,08 •o;o5 •0,11 •0,08 ■0,08 •0,12 * 1,00 0,46** 0.02 0,67** 8,34** ■0,26** ■0,03
304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 30 4 , 304 , 0, 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 ,
8 ATHACT 0,02 ■ o ; 30** •0,26** -n,24** ■0,27** •0 , 3 1 * * 0,46** 1,00 0,18** 0,79** 0,21** • 0 , 3 7 * * ■0,01
304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 300 , 304 , 0, 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 ,
9 NONA T H 0 , 3 0 * * • o ; io •0,03 •0,10** • 0 , 2 4 * * ■0,05 0,02 0,18** 1,00 0,62** 0 , 3 3 * * ■ 0 ,2 7 * * 0,11 *

304 , 304 . ’ 0 4, ’ 04, 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 0. 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 ,
LDk
10 DRR CP 0 , 1 3 * •o;22** • 0 , 1 9 * * *0,55*+ ■0,29** ■0,23** 0,67** 0 , 7 9 * * 0,62** 1,00 0,42** •0,4 3 * * 0,04
304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 3C4, 300 , 3 04, 304 , 304 , 0, 304 , 304 , 304 ,
11 S f L CP 0,43** 0 i 56** 0,50** 0,48** 0 . 4 0 * * 0,78** 0 , 3 4 * * 0,21** 0 , 3 3 * * 0 , 4 2 * * 1,00 ■0,19** 0,38**

304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 0, 304 , 30 4 ,
12 MjLRAT •0,21** o; io 0,09 0,16*+ 0 , 1 8 * * 0,08 ■ 0 ,2 6 * * ■0,37 * * • 0 , 2 7 * * ■ 0 , 4 3 * * • 0 , 1 9 * * 1,00 ■0,22**
304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 0, 30 4 ,
13 GP A 0,43** o;?3+* 0,09 0 ,26 *+ 0 , 2 3 * * 0,01** • 0 , 0 3 ■0,01 0,11 * 0 , 0 4 0 , 3 8 * * ■0,22** 1,00
304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 0,
14 AfH 0,13 o;n 0,00 0,14 0,10 0,16 * •0,02 0,01 •0,04 ■0,02 1 0,12 0,10 0,13
241, 241, 541, 241. 241, 24 1 , 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
15 OFF 0,08 •o;o3 •0,01 0,09 0,00 0,07 0,04 0,05 •0,05 0,02 0,07 •0,11 0,07
241, 241, 541. 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
16 U r [) 0,17 * o;o9 0,09 0.06 0,08 0,17 * •0 ,0 4 ■0,05 •0,02 ■0,05 0,11 •0,02 0,00
241, 241. 541, 24 1 , 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241. 241, 241,
17 EyH •0,13 o;o6 0,03 0.00 ■ 0 ,0 3 r0,03 0,03 •0.06 0,06 0,02 ■0,01 0,10 •0,05
241, 241. 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
18 A[|T *0,16 * ■o ;o 3 ■0,01 •o.io *o;oi •0,10 0,06 0,09 ■0,03 0,06 ■0,04 0,06 ■0,06
241, 241, ?411 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
19 aff ■0,09 ■o;i9** •0,13 •0,02 ■0,06 *0,16 * 0,01 0,04 0,00 0,03 ■0,13 ■0,11 ■0,08
241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
20 1NT 0,01 o;o6 0,04 •0,06 0,00 0,02 *0,02 -0,03 0,03 ■0,01 0,02 0,00 0,04
241, 241, ?4l, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
21 sue ■0,06 ■o;o7 •0,12 ■0,15 * ■0,14 rO,i7 * *0,02 0,03 0,02 0,01 •0,15 * ■0,11 ■0,14
241, 24l, 241. 241, 241, 241, 241. 241, 241, 241, 241, 241. 241,
22 DnM ■0,13 o;i2 0,09 0,03 0,01 0,02 *0,01 ■0,03 0,00 ■0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05
241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
23 ApA 0,19** •o;io -0,04 •0,04 ■0,05 0,01 •0,01 0,13 0,08 0,10 0,06 ■0,11 0,09
241, 241, 241, 541, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241. 241,
24 NUR 0,08 ■o;i4 ■0,15 * ■0,06 •0,14 ■0,12 *0,01 0,11 0,13 0,12 ■0,05 ■0,10 0,05
241, 241, 241. 241. 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
25 Ch G ■0,06 o;o4 0,04 0,06 0,00 0,02 0,08 0,00 •0,05 0,01 0,03 0,02 ■0,04
241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
26 Ln D 0,?2** o ;oq 0,14 * 0,21** 0.21** 0,?8** •0,04 ■0,11 •0,06 ■0,10 0,18 * 0,02 0,16
241, 241. 241, 941, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
27 met. ■0,15 * o;o2 0,02 -0,03 ■0,06 •0,08 0,00 ■0,07 •0,03 ■0,05 ■0,09 0,15 * •0,11
241, 241, 241, 541, 241, 241, 241, , 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
28 AfiG •0,17 * ■o;06 ■0,02 ■0,16 * ■0,04 *0,14 * 0,01 ■0,09 ■0,05 •0.07 ■0,16 * 0,05 •0,14
241, 241, 741, 541, 241, 741, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
29 s LOQ 0,04 •o;o9 0,02 ■0,01 ■0,05 ■0,03 0,04 0,07 0,02 0,06 0,01 ■0,09 •0,06
304 , 304 , 304 , 204, 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304, 304 , 304 , 304 ,
30 C LOQ 0,02 o;o3 •0,01 ■0,04 ■0,03 ■0,01 *0,10 ■0,03 0,11 * 0,00 ■0,01 ■0,01 ■0,03
304 , 304 , 304 , ’04, 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304, 304 , 304 , 304 ,
31 S FIR 0,06 ■o;o5 0,08 0,01 •0.02 0,03 0,03 0,06 0,04 0,07 0,06 ■0,05 ■0,09
304 , 304, 30 4 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304, 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 ,
32 C FIR 0,02 o;oi •0,01 ■0,07 ■0.02 ■0,02 *0,11 * ■0,03 0,09 •0,02 •0,04 0,01 ■0,06
304 , 304 , 304 , 204, 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 ,
33 C h GFIR 0,00 o;o2 0,00 *0,03 ■0,01 >■0,00 *0,03 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,06 0,00
304, 304 , 30 4 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304, 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 ,
correlation MATRIX FUK INTERCORREHTIONS rOR T3, MR* GPA* 15 EPPS* LOW S ♦ C, FACTOR S*C*CHfi,
SECTION 2
14 15 16 17 1! 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
ACH . ULF ORO EXH AUT AEF INT sue )0M BA m CHG END
1 AcAD R 0,13 o;oe 0,17 * •0.13 ■0,16 * *0,09 0,01 •0,06 •0,13 0,19** 0,08 •0,06 0,22**
241, 241, 241, 941, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241 • 241,
2 VPAPT 9,11 •o;o3 0,09 0,06 ■0,03 *0,19** 0,06 ■0,07 0,12 •0,10 •0,14 0,04 0,09
241, 241, 241, 941. 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241. 241, 241,
3 L kiG CP 0,00 •o;oi 0,09 0.03 ■o;oi *0,13 0,04 ■0,12 0,09 •0,04 ■8,15 * 0,04 0,14 *
241, 241, 241, 941, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
4 H APT 0,14 o;o9 0,06 0,00 •0,10 *0,02 *0,06 ■0,15 * 0,03 ■0,04 ■8,06 0,06 0,21**
241, 241, 941, 941, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, .241, 241, 241,
5 H ACH 0,10 o;oe 0,08 ■0,03 ■O.Oi ■0,06 0,00 •0,14 0,01 •0,05 ■8,14 0,00 0,21**
241, 241, 941, 941, 241, 241, 241. 241, 241, _ 241, 241, 241, 241,
6 ACADGP 0,16 * o;o7 0,17 * •0,03 •0,10 *0,16 * 0,02 •0,17 * 0,02' 0,01 •0,12 0,02 0,28**
241, 241, 941, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
7 P h YAE /O',02 o;o4 •0,04 0,03 0,06 0,01 *0,02 ■0,02 •0,01 •0,01 . ■0,01 0,08 •0,04
'241, 241, 941, 941, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
8 ATHACT 0,01 o;o5 •0,05 •0,06 0,09 0,04 *0,03 0,03 ■0,03 0,13 8,11 0,00 ■0,11
241, 241, ’41, 941, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
9 NONATH •0,04 •o;o5 •0,02 0,06 ■0,03 0,00 0,03 0,02 0,00 0,08 0,13 ■0,05 ■0,06
241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
10 cp •0,02 0:02 ■0,05 0,02 0,06 0,03 •0,01 0,01 •0,02 0,10 0,12 0,01 •0,10
241, 241, 241, 941, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
11 S e L CP 0,12 o;o7 0,11 •0,01 ■0,04 ■0,13 0,02 ■0,15 * 0,03 0,06 ■8,05 0,03 0,18 *
241, 241, 941, 941, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
12 MrLRAT 0,10 •o;n ■0,02 0,10 0,06 ■0,11 0,00 •0,11 0,04 ■0,11 •0,10 0,02 0,02
241, 241, 241, 941. 241, 241, 241, 241, 241. 241, 241, 241« 241,
13 GPA 0,13 o;o7 0,00 ■0,05 •0,06 •0,03 0,04 ■0,14 * 0,05 0,09 0,05 •0,04 0,16 *
241, 241, 941, 941, 241. .241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
14 ACH 1,00 •0;27t* •0,21** 0,13 . 0,03 * 0 , 18** *0,02 •0,28** 0,24** •0,17 * ■0,19** ■0,06 0,18**
0, 241, 941. 941, ' 241, 24), 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
15 OFF ■0,?7** i;oo 0,49** ■0,95** •0',22** *0,15 * 0,06 ■0,07 ■0,27** 0,13 •0,15 * ■0,01 0,28**
241, 0, 241, 941, 241, 241, 241, 241. 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
16 QpD •0,21** 0;49** 1,00 ■0,21** ■0,12 *0,37** *0,13 ■0,07 •0,29** 0,01 •1,28** 0,04 0,44**
241, 241, 0, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241. 241, 241, 241, 241,
ir E xh 0,13 ■o;25** •0,21** 1,00 0,15 * *0,05 *0,12 0,03 0,03 •0,18** ■8,14 * •0,08 ■0,32**
241, 241. 941, 0, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
18 Au T 0,03 ■0;22** *0,12 0,15 * i;oo ■o,u *0,05 ■0,04 •0,09 ■0,24** ■6,24** 0,23** ■0,24**.
241, 241, 241, 741, 0, 741. 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
19 AfF ■0,18** ■o;i5 *■0,37** ■0,05 ■0,11 1,00 *0,09 0,09 ■0,07 ■0,03 8,43** •0,05 ■0,33**
241, 241, ?4l, 9QI1 241, 0, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
20 InT ■0,02 o;o6 •0,13 •0,12 ■o;oi *■0,09 1,00 •0,16 * •0,03 0,03 ■8,09 •0,12 ■0,08
241, 241, 741, 741, 241, 241, 0, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
21 Syc •0,28** •o;o7 •0,07 0,03 ■0,04 0,09 p0,16 * 1,00 •0,39** •0,03 0,17 *■0,14 *■0,34**
241, 241, ?4l, 741, 241, 241, 241, 0, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
22 DOM 0,?4** •o;27** ■0,29** 0,03 ■0,09 k0,07 *0,03 •0,39** 1,00 ■0,13 •0,05 •0,10 0,02
241, 241, 741, 741, 241, 241, 241, 241, 0, .241, 241, 241, 241,
23 ApA •0,17 * o ; n 0,01 ■ 0 ,1fi** •o;24** *0,03 0,03 ■0,03 •0,13 1,00 0,08 ■0,14 * 0,01
241, 241, 741, 9fl j i 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 0, 241, 241, 241,
24 NyR ■0,19** •o;i5 *•0.7M ■0,14 *•0,24** 0,43** •0,09 0,17 * ■0,05 0,08 1,00 •0,28** ■0,24**
241, 241, ?4l, 94! i 241, 741, 241, 241, 241, 241, 0, 241, 241,
25 CHG ■0,06 •o;oi 0,04 ■0,08 0i23**•0,05 *0,12 •0,14 t •0,10 •0,14 *•0,28** 1,00 •0,04
241, 241, 741, 9*111 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 0, 241,
26 LnD 0,18** 0;28** 0,44** •0,32** ■0,24** •0,33** *0,08 •0,34** 0,02 0,01 •9,24** ■0,04 1,00
241, 741, 741, 94! i 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 0,
27 Hf! 0,00 ■0;43** •0,39** 0,16 *■0,08 0,14 **0,15 * 0,14 * 0,13 •0,24** 8,08 ■0,01 •0,36**
241, 241, ?4l, 9*11 • 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
28 AGO ■0,14 *■ o ; i 6 * ■0,10 0,12 0,19** •0,13 *0,05 0,06 •0,03 •0,16 *•0,13 •0,10 •0,21**
241, 241. ?4l, 9*1 ] i 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
29 5 LOQ 0,17 * o;o5 0,03 ■0,01 ■0,06 *0,03 •0,04 ■0,11 0,12 ■0,04 ■9,10 ■0,07 0,19**
241, 241, 741, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
30 0 LOO ■0,05 ■ o ; n •0,07 0,03 ■0,03 0,14 0,03 •0,02 0,04 ■0,05 0,14 * 0,01 •0,09
241, 741, 741, 94 i 241, 741, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
31 5 FIR 0,14 * o;o6 0,05 0,01 •o;io •0,08 0,01 ■0,10 0,11 0,00 ■0,11 ■0,04 0,16 *
241, 741, 741, 741, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
32 0 FIR •0,04 ■o;o4 •0,08 0,01 •o;io 0,12 . 0,05 0,03 0,02 ■0,05 0,14 •0,02 ■0,08
241, 241, ?4i, 741, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
33 ChGFTR 0,02 ■o;o3 0,01 o.oi 0,11 0,02 0,07 •0,14 0,00 ■0,07 0,01 0,06 ■0,02
241, 241, 741, 741, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
CORRELATION MATRIX FUK INTERCORFFLATTONS FOR U> MR' GPA' 15 EPPG' LOU S ♦ C' FACTOR S>C>CHG
SECTION 3
27 28 29 30 31 32 33
HET AGO S LOQ 0 LOO s ft p c ftp CMGFTR
1 AfAD R ■0.15 * ■o;i7 * 0,04 0,02 0,06 0,02 0,00

241, 241, J04, 304, 3(04. 304 , 304 ,
2 V b API 0,02 •o;o6 ■0,09 0,03 ■0,05 0,01 0,02

241, 241, 304, 304, 304, 304 , 304,
3 ENG CP 0,02 •o;o2 0,02 •0,01 0,08 ■0,01 0,00

241, 241, 304 , 304 , 3C4, 304 , 304,
4 M APT ■0,03 •o;i6 * •0,01 •0,04 0,01 *0,07 *0,03

241, 241, 304 , 304 , 304, 304 , 304 ,
5 M ACH ■0,06 •o;o4 •0,05 •0,03 *0;02 *0,02 *0,01

241, 241, 304 , 304 , 3(04. 304 , 304 ,
6 ACADGP ■0,08 •o;i4 * •0,03 •0,01 0,03 *0,02 *0,00

241, 241, 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 ,
7 P h YAE 0,00 o;oi 0,04 ■o.io 0,03 *0,11 * *0,03

241, 241, 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 ,
8 ATHACT ■0,07 ■o;o9 0,07 •0,03 0,06 ■0,03 0,02

241, 241, 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 ,
9 nonath •0,03 •o;o5 0,02 0,11 * 0,04 0,09 0,01

241, 241, JO4, 304 , 3C4, 304 , 304 ,
IM. ■o;o7 0,06 0,00 0,07 *0,02 0,01
10 DRR CP ■0,05
241, 241, 304 , .304 , 304 , 304 , 304 ,
11 Sfl CP ■0,09 ■o;i6 * 0,01 *0,01 0,06 ■0.04 0,00

241, 241, 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 ,
12 MlLRAT 0,15 * o;o5 ■0,09 •0,01 ■0,05 0,01 0,06

241, 241. 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 , 304 ,
13 UFA *0,11 ■o;i4 ■0,06 ■0,03 ■0,09 *0,06 0,00

241, 241, 304, 304 , 304, 304 , 304,
14 ACH 0,00 •o;i4 * ■0,17 * *0,05 0,14 * *0,04 0,02

241, 241, ?41 , 241, 241, 241, 241,
15 [)[F •0,43** ■o;i6 * 0,05 “0,11 0,06 *0,04 *0,03

241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241, 241,
16 L=0 •0,39** •o;io 0,03 •0,07 0,05 *0,08 0,01

241, 241, 741, 241, 241, 241, 241,
17 EXH 0,16 * o;i2 ■0,01 0,03 0,01 0,01 0,01

241, 241, ?4t, 241, 241, 241, 241,
18 AUT •0,08 o;i9** ■0,08 •0,03 ■o;io ■0,|0 0.11

'0 • tot •tat ' 7 Of M/Ol ' 172 •172
00M ♦♦12' 0 ♦♦si!o ♦♦ofa ♦ U'O 20!0. OO'O h u m EE
'tioe '0 •tat •tot •tot *172 •172

♦♦IZ' O OO'l » z r o - ♦ ♦/b"'J ♦ 1 1' 0 - BO'.O- Zl ' O HU 0 2E
•>oe •trot '0 •tut '7Ut ' 172 Mt Z

m SI' O ♦ Z I *0- OOM l u ' 0 . ♦♦26*0 _ to!o ♦ 91'0- HU S IE
•t o e •t oe 'toe •o •7Cf ' 172 Mt Z

♦♦OS'O m 28'0 I (J' 0 “ OU'l fo'u- 60*0- ll'O 1)01 0 0E
•m M i Of •tat •tot 'U M72 ' 172

♦ n*o * 7l'0- ♦♦Zb'O t O' U- OO'l s ol o E.l'Q- 001 5 62
•
•U2 •lt2 ",n *172 *172 *0 MtZ
2Q'Q* OO'O* 50*0 oU ‘ J• S O ’u ooM 9U'0. 007 92
•itz Mt Z MtZ •172 '172 *172 •o

OO'O ZI'Q * 91*0- I I ’O ElV 9 g !q . OO'l 13H 11
' 172 Mt Z *172 *172 M72 MtZ M 72
20*0- BO'Ofl ♦ 91*0 60*0- ♦*6l'0 ♦ * i z ! o . ♦ ♦ 9 t ‘0» QN3 92
•itz Mt Z '172 'i72 '17i *172 •172

90*0 2G'0< 70'0- lli'O iD'O- oi!o. JO’ O- SH3 52
' 172 Mt Z MtZ ' 172 M7i Mt Z Mt Z

10*0 »I ' Q II'O- ♦ t l'O OI'O- EllO- 90'0 72
' TtZ *1*2 'U2 •172 '172 M72 ' 172

ZO'O* 50*0- ao'o SO'O- 70 ' O ♦ 9 I | 0 . ♦♦72*0- tav EZ
■>
*UZ Mt Z ' 172 Mt2 Mftf ' 172 ' 172
OO'O 20*0 tro tQ'O Zl ' O toio- fl'O woo 22
Mt )l Mt Z MtZ '172 '172 *172 ‘ 172

• Po- I t o '0 OI' O- ZO'U- II'O- BOlQ ♦ 7 1 * 0 oil? 12
' 172 Mt Z ' 172 •172 *l»2 *172 •172

20*0 50*0 lO'O EO'O 70'0- s o l o - ♦ SI'Q* INI 02
•w Mte *172 ' 172 ' 172 •172 •172

20*0 zfo eo'o- 7l*0 EO'O" u ! o . ♦ 7 1 *0 Hi 61
•i n Mt Z ' 172 •172 *172 •172 •172 ... _ ._

INTERCORKELATIONS FUH f3, HR, 5PH, 15 EPPS* LOS S * C> FACTOR S»C>CMG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
acad r VBAPT ENG CP M fipT M SCH ACADGp pHYAE athact NONATH D8R CP SEL CP M1LRAT GPA
MEANS 572,63 606,51 696J9S 676,21 666,60 3120,09 576,96 521,06 552,09 1650,11 604,50 30,44 2,70
so=s. 90,30 67,74 70;56 56,71 76,98 226,87 100,28 113,04 118,92 229,91 34,17 12,77 0,54
NO, SU6j=S,** ** n +* ** ii ** ** ** ** **
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
ACH DEF UNO EXH AUT AFF INI sue DOM ABA NOR CHG END
MEANS 16,38 12,41 12J57 14,08 19,76 13.79 14,73 11,16 16,62 14,78 12,81 15,34 14,90
SQsS, T.oT; 3,82 4;94 3,33 4,08 3,90 4,40 4,57 4,55 4,41 4,47 3,82 4,97
NO, SUBjsS,** ** ** ++ ** 4+ ** it ** ** ** ** **
27 28 ?9 30 31 32 33
HET AGG s mo C LOQ S FJR C FTP chgftr
MEANS 14,99 12,64 52;86 44,66 35,45 18,6? 11,32
50*5, 5,11 4,09 6J22 6,38 A,68 3,93 1,96
NO, SUfiJ'S.** *+ ** ** *+ a
NOTE: Num ber of Subjects s 304 for all v ariables except the Edwards P erso nal P re fe re n c e Schedule m e a s u re s , The num ber of
subjects for the Edw ards P erso n a l P re fe re n c e Schedule m easures = 241,

Thisdissertationhasbeen M Icrofilm Ed Exactly As Receiv Ed: U N Iversity M Icrofilm S, Inc., A N N Arbor, M Ichigan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thisdissertationhasbeen M Icrofilm Ed Exactly As Receiv Ed: U N Iversity M Icrofilm S, Inc., A N N Arbor, M Ichigan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This dissertation h as b een

m icrofilm ed exactly as received 69-11,650

HOOPER, Donald B ruce, 1936-

The Ohio State U n iv ersity , Ph.D ., 1968

U niversity M icrofilms, Inc., A nn Arbor, M ichigan

IN CLASSICAL AND MODERATOR MODELS FOR THE

PREDICTION OF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

Donald Bruce Hooper, B. Sc. in Bus. Adm. , M. Bus. Adm.

The Ohio State University

As a member of the United States Air Force, I must

April 10, 1936 Bora - Columbus, Ohio

Major Field: Management

I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1

II. SURVEY OF LITERATURE AND PROBLEM .......... 12

The Research Setting and Samples

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4 3

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 8 6

A: Leadership Opinion Questionnaire........... 107

B: Intercorrelations Among 33 Variables. ... ^ 11

1. Raw Score Means, Standard Deviations,

2. Raw -Score Means, Standard Deviations,

3. Leadership Composite Scores for Candi­

4. Validities and Comparison of Multiple

5. Validities and Comparison of Multiple

6. Test of Contribution of the Experimental

8 . Validities and Comparison of Multiple

9. Test of Contribution of the Experimental

10. Standard Score Means and Correlations Be­

11. Standard Score Means and Correlations Be­

12. Standard Score Means and Correlations Be­

13. Standard Score Means and Correlations Be­

14. Standard Score Means and Correlations Be­

16. Regression Analysis Against the Military

17. Correlations Between the Predicted and

18. Correlations Between the Predicted and

19. Items With High Factor Loadings on Factor

20. Items With High Factor Loadings on Factor

21. Items With High Factor Loadings on Factor

22. Raw Score Means, Standard Deviations, R e ­

23. Means for Initiating Structure Groups on

24. Means for Consideration Groups on the

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the

This brief review discusses some of the major theoret­

Prediction Models: Traditional and Modified

One specific application of the theory underlying this

The Relation of Role Theory to the

Historically, the empirical research on predicting lead­

Significance of the Problem

The theoretical significance of the problem was indica­

Statement of the Hypotheses

The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the

The leadership opinion variables, Initiating Structure

The use of the leadership opinion variables, Initiating

The derivation of separate prediction equations for each

Additional Questions and Supplemental Research

After the initial hypotheses were formulated, it became

^USAFA is used as the abbreviation for the United

SURVEY OF LITERATURE AND PROBLEM

The two general categories of literature bearing on

This study compared the utility of classical and modi­

3. Leadership Composite Scores for Candi

10. Standard Score Means and Correlations Be

11. Standard Score Means and Correlations Be

12. Standard Score Means and Correlations Be

13. Standard Score Means and Correlations Be

14. Standard Score Means and Correlations Be

22. Raw Score Means, Standard Deviations, R e

This brief review discusses some of the major theoret

Historically, the empirical research on predicting lead

The theoretical significance of the problem was indica

This study compared the utility of classical and modi

subgroups. Based on a survey of the literature on moder

Cadets were asked to complete the questionnaire by des

The results for the three hypotheses and two addi

The leadership opinion variables, Initiating Struc

The use of the leadership opinion variables, Initi

Table 10 presents the means for the Leadership Com