Advertisement

Forecasting Training Device Effectiveness Using ASTAR

  • Mary Frances Martin
  • Andrew M. Rose

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss applications for the Automated Simulator Test and Assessment Routine (ASTAR) in the design and acquisition of training systems. ASTAR is a computer-based, analytic method for forecasting the effectiveness of training devices; it is designed to be used throughout the training device design and acquisition process.

Keywords

Training System Acquisition Process Weapon System Training Problem Training Device 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Goldberg, I. & Khatri, N. (1985). A review of models of cost and training effectiveness analysis (CTEA), Volume I: Training effectiveness analysis (Contract No. MDA903–82-C083, Task 8 ). Washington, DC: Consortium of Washington, D.C. Universities.Google Scholar
  2. Kane, J. J., & Holman, G. L. (1982). Training device development: Training effectiveness in the Army system acquisition process (SAI Report No. 82–02–178).Google Scholar
  3. Minneapolis, MN: Honeywell, Incorporated, Systems and Research Center.Google Scholar
  4. Martin, M. F. & Rose, A. M. (1988). Implementation of ASTAR: Evaluation of the Portable Aircrew Trainer (Purchase Order No. C-44045). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  5. Nutter, R. V. & Terrell, W. R. (1982). A management system for RDT & E funded training device acquisitions in the Naval Education and Training Command (Technical Report No. 118 ). Orlando, FL: Department of the Navy, Training Analysis and Evaluation Group.Google Scholar
  6. Rose, A. M., Evans, R., & Wheaton, G. R. (1987). Methodological approaches for simulator evaluations. In S.M. Cormier & J.D. Hagman (Eds.) Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Rose, A. M. & Martin, A. W. (1984). Forecasting device effectiveness: III. Analytic assessment of DEFT (Contract No. MDA 903–82–0414). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  8. Rose, A. M. & Martin, M. F. (1988). Implementation of ASTAR: Evaluation of the Combat Talon II Maintenance Trainer (Purchase Order No. C-44045). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  9. Rose, A. M., Martin, M. F., & Wheaton, G. R. (1988). Implementation of ASTAR: Evaluation of the Precision Gunnery Training System (Purchase Order No. C-44045). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  10. Rose, A. M. & Wheaton, G. R. (1984a). Forecasting device effectiveness: I. Issues (Contract No. MDA 903–82–0414). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  11. Rose, A. M. & Wheaton, G. R. (1984b). Forecasting device effectiveness: II. Procedures (Contract No. MDA 903–820414 ). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Frances Martin
    • 1
  • Andrew M. Rose
    • 1
  1. 1.American Institutes for ResearchUSA

Personalised recommendations