用于评估作战和作战压力的方案和干预措施的结果指标:心理测量学性质的回顾

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Military Psychology Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-29 DOI:10.1080/08995605.2022.2117537
Denise C Cooper, Marjorie S Campbell, Spencer R Case, Melissa C Fraine, Rebecca A Jones, Ilene F Klein, Tim Hoyt
{"title":"用于评估作战和作战压力的方案和干预措施的结果指标:心理测量学性质的回顾","authors":"Denise C Cooper, Marjorie S Campbell, Spencer R Case, Melissa C Fraine, Rebecca A Jones, Ilene F Klein, Tim Hoyt","doi":"10.1080/08995605.2022.2117537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Department of Defense has mandated combat and operational stress control (COSC) efforts for the Services since 1999. Although several COSC-related programs have been implemented, few have undergone evaluation, and no standardized metrics have been established to assess their effectiveness and utility. The purpose of this review was to characterize the content and psychometrics of measures that have been utilized as outcome metrics in evaluations of COSC-related programs and interventions. Systematic literature searches were conducted for publications that: a) evaluated at least one measure from U.S. service members who participated in a program or intervention to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of combat and operational stress; and b) reported U.S. data on the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and sensitivity/specificity of the identified measures. This process identified 15 measures for which psychometric properties were reviewed for acceptability based on recommended criteria. Identified measures varied from well-validated measures to newer instruments for which more data is needed on one or more of the target psychometric properties. Aside from internal consistency, psychometric data from U.S. military samples were sparse. Results further suggested that some measures might have reduced sensitivity in service members under certain conditions, such as large-scale screening. Additional studies are needed to validate COSC-relevant measures in service members. Future evaluations of programs and interventions for combat and operational stress should select measures that will increase the consistency of the literature, allow comparisons across studies, and ensure alignment with the objectives of identified programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":18696,"journal":{"name":"Military Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10880499/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcome metrics utilized in evaluations of programs and interventions for combat and operational stress: A review of psychometric properties.\",\"authors\":\"Denise C Cooper, Marjorie S Campbell, Spencer R Case, Melissa C Fraine, Rebecca A Jones, Ilene F Klein, Tim Hoyt\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08995605.2022.2117537\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Department of Defense has mandated combat and operational stress control (COSC) efforts for the Services since 1999. Although several COSC-related programs have been implemented, few have undergone evaluation, and no standardized metrics have been established to assess their effectiveness and utility. The purpose of this review was to characterize the content and psychometrics of measures that have been utilized as outcome metrics in evaluations of COSC-related programs and interventions. Systematic literature searches were conducted for publications that: a) evaluated at least one measure from U.S. service members who participated in a program or intervention to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of combat and operational stress; and b) reported U.S. data on the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and sensitivity/specificity of the identified measures. This process identified 15 measures for which psychometric properties were reviewed for acceptability based on recommended criteria. Identified measures varied from well-validated measures to newer instruments for which more data is needed on one or more of the target psychometric properties. Aside from internal consistency, psychometric data from U.S. military samples were sparse. Results further suggested that some measures might have reduced sensitivity in service members under certain conditions, such as large-scale screening. Additional studies are needed to validate COSC-relevant measures in service members. Future evaluations of programs and interventions for combat and operational stress should select measures that will increase the consistency of the literature, allow comparisons across studies, and ensure alignment with the objectives of identified programs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18696,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Military Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10880499/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Military Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2022.2117537\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/8/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Military Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2022.2117537","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自 1999 年以来,美国国防部已授权各军种开展战斗和作战压力控制(COSC)工作。虽然已经实施了几项与 COSC 相关的计划,但几乎没有进行过评估,也没有建立标准化的衡量标准来评估其有效性和实用性。本综述的目的是对 COSC 相关计划和干预措施评估中用作结果衡量标准的措施的内容和心理测量学进行描述。我们对以下出版物进行了系统的文献检索:a) 评估了至少一项措施,评估对象是参加了旨在预防或减少战斗和作战压力不良影响的项目或干预措施的美国军人;b) 报告了已确定措施的内部一致性、测试-再测试可靠性、收敛有效性和敏感性/特异性的美国数据。这一过程确定了 15 项测量方法,并根据建议的标准审查了其心理测量特性的可接受性。所确定的测量方法多种多样,既有经过充分验证的测量方法,也有较新的测量工具,这些工具在一个或多个目标心理测量属性方面还需要更多的数据。除了内部一致性之外,来自美军样本的心理测量数据并不多。结果进一步表明,在某些条件下,如大规模筛查,某些测量方法对军人的敏感性可能会降低。还需要进行更多的研究来验证服役人员的 COSC 相关测量。未来针对战斗和作战压力的计划和干预措施的评估应选择能提高文献一致性的测量方法,以便在不同研究之间进行比较,并确保与已确定计划的目标相一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Outcome metrics utilized in evaluations of programs and interventions for combat and operational stress: A review of psychometric properties.

The Department of Defense has mandated combat and operational stress control (COSC) efforts for the Services since 1999. Although several COSC-related programs have been implemented, few have undergone evaluation, and no standardized metrics have been established to assess their effectiveness and utility. The purpose of this review was to characterize the content and psychometrics of measures that have been utilized as outcome metrics in evaluations of COSC-related programs and interventions. Systematic literature searches were conducted for publications that: a) evaluated at least one measure from U.S. service members who participated in a program or intervention to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of combat and operational stress; and b) reported U.S. data on the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and sensitivity/specificity of the identified measures. This process identified 15 measures for which psychometric properties were reviewed for acceptability based on recommended criteria. Identified measures varied from well-validated measures to newer instruments for which more data is needed on one or more of the target psychometric properties. Aside from internal consistency, psychometric data from U.S. military samples were sparse. Results further suggested that some measures might have reduced sensitivity in service members under certain conditions, such as large-scale screening. Additional studies are needed to validate COSC-relevant measures in service members. Future evaluations of programs and interventions for combat and operational stress should select measures that will increase the consistency of the literature, allow comparisons across studies, and ensure alignment with the objectives of identified programs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Military Psychology
Military Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
18.20%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Military Psychology is the quarterly journal of Division 19 (Society for Military Psychology) of the American Psychological Association. The journal seeks to facilitate the scientific development of military psychology by encouraging communication between researchers and practitioners. The domain of military psychology is the conduct of research or practice of psychological principles within a military environment. The journal publishes behavioral science research articles having military applications in the areas of clinical and health psychology, training and human factors, manpower and personnel, social and organizational systems, and testing and measurement.
期刊最新文献
Interpersonal and Trauma-Related Guilt moderate the relationship between intensity of combat experiences and suicidality. A qualitative assessment of perceptions of gender-based stigma among US Marine Corps officers in training. Are veterans willing to assist with firearm safety for suicide prevention? Associations among psychological health problems, intimate-relationship problems, and suicidal ideation among United States Air Force active-duty personnel. Fluid teams.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1