Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37903171›Full record

ArticleMilitary psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association

Leading indicators of readiness among the general Army and Special Operations Forces: Predictive and psychometric analysis of the Global Assessment Tool.

Josh B Kazman, Joshua A Bonner, Jessica L Kegel, D Alan Nelson, Patricia A Deuster

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Military psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The combined effects of coping and pain interference on army readiness.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Josh B KazmanConsortium for Health and Military Performance, Department of Military and Emergency Medicine, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Joshua A BonnerConsortium for Health and Military Performance, Department of Military and Emergency Medicine, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Jessica L KegelConsortium for Health and Military Performance, Department of Military and Emergency Medicine, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
D Alan NelsonConsortium for Health and Military Performance, Department of Military and Emergency Medicine, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Patricia A DeusterConsortium for Health and Military Performance, Department of Military and Emergency Medicine, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · USHenry M. Jackson Foundation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-assessments are commonly used to track Army readiness in specialized communities, but they are rarely analyzed for reliability and predictive validity. Before introducing new assessments, existing ones should be reevaluated. We examined the Global Assessment Tool (GAT), an annual Army-required self-assessment with multiple psychosocial and health behavior short scales. Psychometric analyses on nine scales included item response theory (IRT) and measurement invariance models across total Army (n = 743,057) and special operations forces (SOF; n = 3,478) cohorts. Predictive analyses examined demographic-adjusted associations between GAT scales and one-year incident medical non-readiness (MNR). Most scales had adequate reliability, although some exhibited highly skewed distributions, which likely increased measurement error. Most scales exhibited metric and scalar measurement equivalence across total Army and SOF groups. Scores from scales measuring positive characteristics were associated with lower odds of MNR (good coping, flexibility, optimism, positive affect, work engagement, friendship, organization trust; adjusted odds ratios ≤ 0.75); scores from scales measuring negative characteristics were associated with increased odds of MNR (poor sleep, depression, negative affect, loneliness; adjusted odds ratios ≥ 1.4). Associations were similar across Army and SOF cohorts. In conclusion, self-report data can potentially contribute to command surveillance, but iterative quality-checks are necessary after deployment.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorMilitary PersonnelData CollectionHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of Resultsarmyitem response theorymeasurement equivalenceReadinesssurveillance

Identifiers

PMID37903171
PMCPMC10617374
OpenAlexW4308713360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.