Skip to Main Content
A study was conducted to test 1) the validity and generalizability of a technique for characterizing schemata of military intelligence information, and 2) its applicability for explaining differences in expert judgments. The task required tactical intelligence analysts to summarize a military scenario in preparation for a briefing. Ten analysts chose the south avenue of approach, and six chose the north avenue of approach as the correct solution. Extraction of topics from the analysts' summaries was used to create a schema for each avenue of approach. The results demonstrated considerable agreement between the two derived schemata. However, critical differences were found, and these differences explained the analysts' different conclusions. Implications for decision aid development and future research are discussed.