Download
Download eBook for Free
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 3.2 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
Purchase
Purchase Print Copy
| Format | List Price | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add to Cart | Paperback161 pages | $40.00 | $32.00 20% Web Discount |
This Note describes the computerized sample selection procedures developed at RAND for use in the 1983 Survey of Military Applicants. The survey provides information on the implementation of the Enlistment Bonus Test, the characteristics distinguishing applicants who enlist from those who do not, and the appeal of alternative hypothetical enlistment options. The computerized sample selection procedures substantially improved those used in the initial Applicant Survey in 1981. Computerization reduced the lag time between application and survey interview, helped to increase the completed interview rate, and essentially eliminated the need for surveying respondents at basic training. Future Applicant Surveys will employ the computerized procedures developed at RAND. This Note explains those procedures in detail and provides the documentation required for their use in future surveys.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Note series. The note was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1979 to 1993 that reported other outputs of sponsored research for general distribution.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.