ArticleMilitary psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association2026
Development and validation of a self-report adaptability measure for the military remote operations community.
Article in Military psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Building on emerging literature, a new self-report inventory was developed to assess multiple psychological attributes relevant to adaptability in remote warriors. Literature search backed by surveys of military and psychological experts identified 32 attributes for self-report scale development. Items were sorted reliably into targeted dimensions (67.5% vs. 1.6% random) in support of content validity. Item analysis of responses from 255 U.S. Air Force remote operations Airmen (74.5% sensor operators) narrowed the set to 25 empirically distinct scales demonstrating overall strong internal consistency reliability (
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.