REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO OPC ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES AND UTILIZATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80R01731R001800100005-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 17, 2003
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: April 19, 1951
• Content Type: MF

Approved Fo eleCase : CIA-RDP80RO1734K001800100005-1
HIT
Security Information
19 April 1951
SUBJECT: Report and Recommendations Relative to OPC Assessment
Procedures and Utilization
1. Reference paragraph 2 of memorandum, subject same as
above, dated 14 April 1951, the following general critique, with
candid comments and recommendations, is offered. Non-technical
language is used throughout because any deficiencies noted are not
technical but administrative in origin. Faulty policy is invariably
involved rather than faulty professional practice:
a. Analysis of OPC training system and its routine
procedures clearly shows evidence of the system being unusu-
ally well-design--d and supervised as effectively as es;ential
security precautions permit. For obvious reasons, the bulk
of activities coming under the heading of training operations
could be neither obs rued nor analysed by the undersigned;
consequently, no pertinent and valid remarks caibe made in
this report concerning the third aspect of TRAINING CONTROL
(instructional operations). Throughout the Agency offices,
there appears a coumon consciousness of the precision with
which TRD is doing all within scope of its control to
accomplish its obvious mission in accordance with Agency
concepts and requirements.
b. A more detailed analysis of the OPC system
of assessment indicates a well-equipped and carefully
coordinated Agency activity which enjoys only vague approval
from aboveand general non-acceptance from below. In other
words, the Agency has not officially caused its Assessment
Unit to present itself to consumer units, branches and
divisions as an ACCEPTABLE PROGRAM, esse-tial for alllong-
range planning and development.
As a unit operating within the TRD organizat_onal
structure, the Assessment Staff appears ready, willing and
able to implement its psychometric program in any valid
manner which will best serve Agency interests and expansion.
But unless its
l
-Security Information
Approved For Release 2003/04/22 : CIA-RDP80R01731 R001800100005-1
 'I "
Approved ForAgelease 2003/04 -RDP80R0173 01800100005-1
security information
But unlessits program is given clear-cut topside approval
by policy statement, it will continue to be viewed as an
off-standards growth accessory to rather than integrated
with the organization as a whole.
Although there should be no need within the Agency
to popularize or glamorize any down-to-earth assessment pro-
gram, no mans should be overlooked which would render it
acceptable to the Agency's mass-mind. Any Agency-adopted
slogan such as "ASSESS.SENT _IEANS ADVANCE14ENT" could direct
attention generally to the program's long-range value and
suggest advantages which mandatory initial plus voluntary
subsequent exposure to a psychometric system would entail.
Within the Assessment Unit itself there still
remains traces of too-gnat a tendency to pattern itself
after prototypes found in educational and industrial
frames of reference. In this connection it is briefly
pointed out that inasmuch as the Agency is unique in its
missions, it is not incongrous thinking to assume that its
approach to assessment could corgi-ectly beunique.
Within the OPC system of assess-ent, however,
radical modification is not recommended mainly because it
is felt to be neither essential nor desirable. Furthermore,
this position is taken by the undersigned for two reasons,
as follows:--
(1) The current unit has within its
basic structure the potentialities needed for
development to fit any program of expansion.
(2) The system shows no inadequacies
which - annot ')e corrected or counterbalanced by
minor adjustments within its current structure
and mechanism.
2. It is suggested that the possibilities of the following
adjustments be explored:--
a. Abandoning use (except in recruiting and
selection of indigenous personnel) of the term SCRE.NING
not only as inapplicable but misleading insorfar as it
implies a progressive separation process. This term is
inappropriate from both operational and motivational view-
points.
b. Substituting, in general usage, the title
PSYCHOMETRIC PROGRAM wherever ASSESS ENT PROGRAM is now
used.
c. Re-designing the
Approved For Re169 100' /iX'122 iiC[A-RDP80RO1731ROO1800100005-1
 Approved ForQeleas%2 8080173101800100005-1
c. Re-designing the current assessment program
in order to make it provide greater objectivity and increase
its susceptibility to mass-dandling of individuals. This
would entail the development of a partially simplified but
more extensive psychometric program which would include
perhaps 5 to 7 LEVELS OF AJSESSiiENT, each level being referred
to by nomenclature distinct within the Agency, e.g., 3rd
Echelon Assessment, Type 2B Assessment, Class 3 Assessment
or just codified as ABDC, etc. Each level need not neces-
sarily be visullized as part of any progressive sequence nor
as a telescoping series although exposure to any particular
level might presup,plse previous exposure at another level
of inquiry into the profile of?anindividual.
d. Making it mandatory that all incoming (newly-
employed) Agency personnel be subjected to at least one of
the levels of assessment or to any appropriate combination
of levels in accordance with job description and Agency
policy previously decided upon.
e. Requiring that all incoming Agency personnel
be assessed for a minimum number of characteristics to
include MOTIVATION, EFF` CTIVE IN -' ,LLIGE SCE and PERSONAL
INTEGRITY. This combination might be visualized as an
initial or basic level of assessment, utilizing not only
pen-and-pencil type measuring devices but also rating
scales, behavior tests, interviews in which projective
methods are touched upon and wherein the clinical psy-
chologist's use of case histories is aided by a collateral
use of polygraphic appliances. Items such as EMOTIONAL
STABILITY or FIELD ADAPTABILITY would be measured within
other appropriate levels of assessment not necessarily
higher or more intensive or less extensive but mainly
subsequent to the initial level insofar as essential only
in connection with particularized job descriptions.
f. Including within the more complex levels of
assessment the factors of nori-?stress as well as stress
situations in a ratio of approximately 2 to 1 (NS to S).
Furthermore, the value of administering a second phase of
specific tests or of conducting suprlementury phases of
interviews after either oral or parenteral usage of
alcohol should not be overlooked.
g. Developing and correlating sets of tests,
i.ntentories, questionnaires and procedures designed by
the Research and Development personnel within the
Psychometric Unit.
1: , ~yy9ntormat or
Approved For Releaser2do3/04/22 : CIA-RDP80RO1731 R001800100005-1
 UELET
Approved For WeasepA930f0R01731+F01800100005-1
Psychometric Unit. These devices would oe designed solely
for use within the Agency. They are essential mainly
becausethe cross-sectional caliber and profiles of Agency
personnel are definitely above average in some factors.
It is just as absurd to expect maxi?aally accurate conclu-
sions from devices of universal applicability as it is to
suppose that testing devices developed within the Agency
cannot bd independently tested for reliability and validity.
h. Increasing the number of 110BILE ASSESSI T
T1AMS and intensifying the psychometric devices they
utilize, particularly in the screening of indigenous
personnel. In tlhh's connection, many three-man teams,
including one clinical psychologist to each team, is
sugs ested.
3. Rega_dless of whether or not minor modifications, as
sqggested in the preceding paragraph, are explored and adopted,?L?,_
,,29AipQnk~ that the special requirements of OPC could be better
is re
fulfilled by:--
a. Omitting all two-day assessments, as such.
If it is desired that reports concerning as,-,essment of
personality contain the conclusion urrently provided,
an exposure of at least four -:ays s ould be required.
This would not ne cess-.rily demand more clinical psycholo-
gists per person assessed but would require increased
emphasis upon procedur s susceptible to quantity produc-
tion. Continuance of two-days assessments on an optional
basis would injure the whole program by rendering it even
ldss acceptable to the Agency mass-mind.
b. Discontinuing all association of assess-
ment with promotion or internal transfers. The term
ASSgSSYENT denotes the process of arriving at PREDICTIVE
judgments of a person's effectiveness BEFORE he has
begun working whereas APPRAISAL denotes a judgment formed
AFTER the person has been working at a job for some time.
Consequently, appraisal and training evaluation are equally
essential for accurate advancement in career fields but
they must not be linked with purely predictive judgments.
This position is maintained not only because they involve
considerably less of the psychometric procedures but also
because their obvious susceptibility to abuse would render
any attached assessment system less acceptable.
c. Utilizing a
-4-
T ET
nformat%Ofl
Approved For Release 2003/04/22 : CIA-RDP80R01731 R001800100005-1
 Approved Forlease 29v4/22 1'CIAINP80R0173'I+i01800100005-1
d. Integrating into any Research and Development
Group operating within the Assessment Unit experts in the
fields of Medicine, Psychiatry, Training, and Human
Engineering in order to keep the overall tone of assess-
ment activities geared continuously to the comprehensive
mission it must fulfill.
e. Incorporating into assessment reports a
suggestion concerning possible SALVAGE POTENTIALS wherever
any assessed individual obtains arating of MEDIOCRE or
below.
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2003/04/22 : CIA-RDP80R01731 R001800100005-1