Assessing Military Professionals' Endorsement of Decision-Making Assumptions: An Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Jostein MattingsdalSection for Seapower and Naval Leadership, Royal Norwegian Naval Academy, Norwegian Defense University College, 5165 Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-5148-2893

Funding

Norwegian Armed Forces N/A

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examines how military professionals interpret claims about decision making in volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environments. A survey of active-duty personnel (N = 225) from the Norwegian Armed Forces (2024-2025) was used to assess whether endorsement of Klein's 11 decision-making claims reflects a unified construct or several distinct decision-making beliefs. After removing two items with insufficient communalities, exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring with Oblimin rotation) was conducted on the remaining nine items. Sampling properties were adequate (KMO = 0.741; Bartlett's χ

Indexed as

adaptive decision makingexploratory factor analysismilitary professionalsrecognition-primed decision makingVUCA environments

Identifiers

PMID42073967

DOI10.3390/bs16040604

PMCPMC13113691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

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.