International Military Testing Association 25–28 October 2004

International Military Testing Association25–28 October 2004

Medical Indicators of Successful United States Military-Specialty Training

L.E. Banderet, Ph.D. 1

V.J. Rice, Ph.D. 2 S.C. Allison, Ph.D. 1

J.F. Creedon, Ph.D. 1

M.A. Sharp, M.S. 1

1 U.S. Army Research Instituteof Environmental MedicineNatick, MA USA

2 ARL-HRED AMEDD Field OfficeFt. Sam Houston, TX USA

2

U.S. Army Medical Department Centerand School, Fort Sam Houston, Texas

3

Military Program Characteristics

206Enlisted19 Physical Therapy Specialist

671

155Cadet52 Physician Assistant

120Enlisted17 Occupational Therapy Specialist

190Enlisted15 Mental Health Specialist

nRankWeeks Program

∑ =

4

Military Specialties Illustrated

MH

PA PT

OT

5

Methodology

• Mixed Model Design (between- and within-volunteer comparisons).

• Volunteer recruitment (first day) and three questionnaire administrations performed by Cadre from a different program.

• Questionnaires given at the beginning (first day) of the course, midway, and at the end – 60 min per administration.

• Data from the Somatic Stress Scale, Profile of Mood States (POMS), Clyde Mood Scale, and Quality of Life Inventory (QOLI) reported on today.

• Appropriate safeguards ensured confidentiality of the volunteers’ data.

• These data are preliminary.

6

Booklet Methodology:Somatic Stress Questionnaire

7

• Somatic Stress measured at midpoint and end of each course was greater than for the other two conditions studied.

• Levels at the midpoint and end were greater (on average) than those during the volunteers’ prior assignment.

• Levels of stress had an interaction (Somatic Stress increased for MH and OT before the course end; whereas, PA and PT levels decreased).

Somatic Stress (Prior and All Admins)

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

MH OT PA PT

Medical Program

Me

an

So

mat

ic S

tres

s

Never

Seldom

Occasionally

Often

Always

8

Mea

n C

on

stru

ct S

core

FATIGUE-INERTIAL

MH

PTOT

PA

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

ANGER-HOSTILITY MH

PTOT

PA

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

~% Course Completed

50 95

• Levels of Fatigue-Inertial had an interaction (Fatigue-Inertial trends depended upon program and % of course completed).

• Anger-Hostility scores were greatest at end of course.

• Anger-Hostility scores differed in some programs (e.g., MH, PA).

• Relative rank ordering of the Anger-Hostility and Fatigue-Inertial measures observed by program.

9

FRIENDLY

MH

PT

OT

PA

52.00

53.00

54.00

55.00

56.00

57.00

58.00

100

SLEEPYMH

PTOT

PA

45.00

50.00

55.00

60.00

65.00

70.00

~% Course Completed

500 95

Mea

n C

on

stru

ct S

core

• Friendly scores decreased during the course and depended upon the program.

• Students had greatest Sleepy scores at midpoint; Sleepy scores varied with program.

• MH students were consistently Sleepy during the course. Even first day, MH students were very Sleepy.

Norm (Mean)

Norm (Mean)

10

• Sleepy scores (all students) were associated with Pass/Fail status at the beginning, midpoint, and end of course.

• Sleepy scores at the beginning were associated with Pass/Fail – even before the course began.

Clyde Mood Scale - Sleepy

40

60

80

~% of Course Completed

Me

an S

lee

py

Sc

ore

0 50 95

Pass

Drop

Norm (Mean)

11

WORK

MH

PT

OT

PA

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

PLAY

MH

PT

OT

PA

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

SELF ESTEEM

MH

PT

OT

PA

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

~% Course Completed50 95

Mea

n C

on

stru

ct S

core

• QOLI rating from Work varied significantly with program.

• Ratings from Play interacted with the program and % course completed.

• Self Esteem had an interaction; PA and PT greatest levels – MH and OT least.

• Ratings from Self Esteem were greater (~2X) than those for Work and Play.

NOTE25% = 1.7650% = 2.65

12

Pass/Fail Status and ASVAB (GT) Scores

95

100

105

110

115

120

MH OT PA PT

Medical Program

Mea

n G

T S

co

re

Pass

Drop

• ASVAB (GT) Scores were significant predictors of Pass/Fail in each program studied.

• Differences of 5-7 points appeared to differentiate Pass/Fail status.

• Soldiers studied ranked in the top 66-89% of the general population.

13

Logistic Regression of ASVAB (GT) Scoreswith Pass/Fail

• Comparison-group scores (n = 81) could have precluded acceptance into some of these military programs; however, many passed!

• Program was not a significant factor in LR analysis.

• Increased ASVAB scores provided greater odds ratios.

1

3

5

7

9

88-104 105-114 115-124 125-140

ASVAB (GT) Score Groupings

Od

ds

Rat

io

14

Predictors of Course Pass/Fail

Negative with “external control”

(PA and PT)

Rotter’s Locus Control

Positive ASVAB (GS) Score

Positive with being married Marital Status

Positive Time on Active Duty

Positive Age

Association with Passing Predictor

15

Summary

• Showed that psychological measures with norms can be used to document the effects of stress in medical academic programs.

• Demonstrated that, in these medical programs, psychological and demographic measures are associated with Pass/Fail.

• Dr. Rice is planning a study with Field Medics (91-W)in collaboration with us, incorporating some of these measures.

• Future analyses will identify the relative contributions of various predictor variables to the Pass/Fail relationship from this study.

16

Conclusions

• Varied dependent measures (demographic, medical, psychological) predict academic outcomes such as Pass/Fail.

• Medical and psychological measures provide useful information about students’ adjustment (e.g., Sleep, Quality of Life, Somatic Stress, Mood).