Summary: GAO reviewed the information on which the military services based their evaluations of the effectiveness of their technical training programs, recruit selection, and position classification decisions.
GAO found that: (1) mean Armed Forces Qualifications Test (AFQT) scores rose by approximately eight points between 1981 and 1989 for both men and women recruits; (2) in 1980, white recruits scored approximately 21 points higher than minority recruits, but by 1989 the difference decreased to 15 points; (3) mean AFQT scores in all services were significantly higher in 1989 than in 1981; (4) mean scores on electronics tests for the three services changed very little from 1985 to 1988, but Army and Navy scores declined significantly in 1989, while Air Force scores remained higher; (5) a smaller percentage of recruits qualified for the most demanding technical specialities than at any time since 1981; (6) women and minorities were severely underrepresented among those who qualified, since they generally scored lower than white men; (7) course grades for five Army specialities were not equally reliable indicators of performance during training; (8) there were inconsistencies in Army scoring procedures between different classes and even within the same class; (9) among Navy recruits, men entered training with lower AFQT scores and significantly higher electronics composite test scores than those for women; (10) final grades for male Navy recruits were slightly, but significantly, lower than those for their female classmates; (11) Air Force trainees' scores and course grades were higher than those of the other services; (12) each service had evaluation mechanisms in place, but only the Army systematically collected data on individuals' field performance; and (13) the lack of reliable field performance data for Navy and Air Force personnel made realistic assessment of training effectiveness impossible.
