ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2024
Protocol for identifying and characterising critical physical tasks in the military: Development and validation.
Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen establishing Physical Employment Standards, validity is dependent on the correct identification and characterisation of critical job tasks.
objectiveTo develop and validate a standardised protocol for the identification, characterisation, and documentation of critical physical job tasks in military occupational specialities in the Swedish Armed Forces (SwAF), and propose a definition of critical physical job tasks for use in the SwAF.
methodsA protocol was drafted with three content domains, including a preliminary definition. Protocol content validity was iteratively assessed in two consecutive stages where ten subject experts rated relevance and simplicity. A consensus panel revised the protocol after each stage. Content validity index (CVI) was calculated as item-CVI (I-CVI) per each feature and as scale average (S-CVI/Ave) per content domain. Acceptable content validity thresholds were 0.78 and 0.90, respectively.
resultsThe validated protocol consisted of 35 items with an I-CVI≥0.90 and≥0.80 for relevance and simplicity, respectively. The S-CVI/Ave was 0.97 for relevance and 0.98 for simplicity. The protocol was language reviewed, reorganised for easy use, and approved by the consensus panel. The final protocol includes: background and aim of the protocol, the accepted generic and critical physical job task definitions, protocol instructions, subject expert-qualifications, job task source and characteristics.
conclusionA standardised protocol for identification and characterisation of critical job tasks in SwAF military occupational specialties was developed. The protocol content was rated relevant and simple by experts and will be of importance in future work establishing physical requirements in the SwAF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.