Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38377250›Full record

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

Outcome metrics utilized in evaluations of programs and interventions for combat and operational stress: A review of psychometric properties.

Denise C Cooper, Marjorie S Campbell, Spencer R Case, Melissa C Fraine, Rebecca A Jones, Ilene F Klein, Tim Hoyt

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Combat and operational stress programs and interventions: A scoping review using a tiered prevention framework.Military psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2024
    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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Denise C CooperPsychological Health Center of Excellence, Defense Health Agency, Falls Church, Virginia.
Marjorie S CampbellPsychological Health Center of Excellence, Defense Health Agency, Falls Church, Virginia.
Spencer R CasePsychological Health Center of Excellence, Defense Health Agency, Falls Church, Virginia.
Melissa C FrainePsychological Health Center of Excellence, Defense Health Agency, Falls Church, Virginia.
Rebecca A JonesPsychological Health Center of Excellence, Defense Health Agency, Falls Church, Virginia.
Ilene F KleinPsychological Health Center of Excellence, Defense Health Agency, Falls Church, Virginia.
Tim HoytPsychological Health Center of Excellence, Defense Health Agency, Falls Church, Virginia.ORCID 0000-0001-6395-7887
Defense Health Agency · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Military PersonnelPsychometricsCombat DisordersHumansOccupational StressOutcome Assessment, Health CareProgram EvaluationReproducibility of ResultsStress, PsychologicalUnited StatesCombat stressoperational stresspsychometricsreliabilityvalidity

Identifiers

PMID38377250
PMCPMC10880499
OpenAlexW4293462491

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.