Page 65 - JSOM Summer 2019

before and after deployment. Many investigators attempted investigators and resilience programs throughout, yet little to
58
to connect resilience with PTSD, but no studies conceptually no frank critique, a rarity in scientific literature and even more
aligned domains of resilience with those of PTSD. For exam- rare in external tests of instruments’ psychometric properties.
ple, resilience research in the military measured psychosocial No comprehensive external psychometric analysis of the CSF
functioning (e.g., emotional, social, family, and spiritual fit- program’s principal instrument of measurement, the GAT, is
ness) or responses to commitment, control, and challenge provided nor are data presented to support continuing CSF/
34
41
as elemental resilience traits, yet those elements do not marry MRT or use of the GAT. Analysis by others indicates that
up with PTSD’s specific clinical domains of traumatic expo- the GAT is incapable of predicting suicides, has poor factor
sure, persistent re-experiencing, avoidance, anhedonia, nor loading with which overall fitness is quantified—particularly
sustained hypervigilance and/or aggression. 44 psychological and spiritual—and has miniscule effect sizes.
65
Lester et al. disclose in fine print that MRT modules had
52
In contrast to US studies, longitudinal research of Canadian little measured impact on resilience; in particular, the GAT was
forces’ resilience refutes previously held assumptions that unable to determine any significant differences in resilience be-
deployments are inherently injurious and destructive to re- tween participants who have been through resilience training
silience. Furthermore, longitudinal study of resilience in versus those who had not. Vie et al. justify omitting mea-
40
42
65
Servicemembers provided more meaningful, and possibly sures of family support, friendships, and other known elements
foundational, causal data than did overall cross-sectional re- of resilience in their study of 40,000 participants was due to
silience measurement. In fact, studies from the United States’ dichotomous response formats and some missing data, both of
NATO partner countries (e.g., Belgium, Scandinavia, Can- which are easily handled by basic statistical procedures.
ada) notably diverged in results from resilience research in US
studies. Within US studies, findings from positive psychology Lester et al. and associated researchers like Peterson et al.
41
52
proponents and authors affiliated with military resilience and had contractual and/or research relationships with the mili-
stress control programs consistently aligned with each other tary to implement resilience-building initiatives, including de-
in suggesting resilience is sina que non to preventing mental signing elements of DoD-funded resilience programs. Those
65
health issues, yet substantively differed in findings when com- researchers also participated first-hand in evaluating resilience
pared with research conducted by investigators external to in their target populations: Servicemembers who went through
and independent of military resilience programs or interna- resilience programs designed by those resilience measurement
tional militaries. researchers, conflicts of interest presenting potentials for
65
bias. The legitimacy of resilience measurement instruments
The GAT and resilience program evaluation warrants scrutiny when
In the largest studies of resilience in the military using the both involve parties are personally invested in military pro-
GAT, investigators had unprecedented opportunities to assess gram success. Resilience program design, instrument develop-
suicidality and depression in tens of thousands of Soldiers ment and administration, and program evaluation should be
during some of the most stressful combat and most alarm- validated separately and independently by external, disinter-
ing soldier suicides, yet they elected not to ask any questions ested third parties, even if programs and measurements are
65
about either, citing legal issues and difficulties analyzing some government property.
dichotomous variables. 41,42 If the main mission of improving
Soldiers’ resilience is to mitigate depression and suicide, con- Success of Resilience-Building Programs in the Military
sciously choosing to not assess either is troubling, because that Resilience initiatives in the military are woven into and born
frustrates PTSD symptom incidence and suicide-risk statistical of the positive psychology movement, spearheaded by Martin
reporting. Issues of research ethics, such as Soldiers’ autonomy Seligman—a movement of benefit to society by bringing the
in refusing to take the GAT or participate in CSF, remain un- power of attitude, having goals of happiness, and embodying a
addressed, as do those Soldiers’ rights to health information position of gratitude into public discourse. Positive psychol-
67
privacy, because their superiors receive immediate feedback of ogists Peterson and Seligman list admirable character traits
68
their GAT results. that they operationalized to evaluate psychological interven-
tions, with aims toward inculcating individual happiness.
69
Military resilience research may be at risk from its own Ser- Leaders in the positive psychology movement were also prin-
vicemember participants: described as the Masling “Screw You cipals in military resilience efforts and program evaluation.
Effect,” participants may skew responses out of frustration Others note that positive psychology proponents are prone to
65
with authorities conducting the exercises. The conventional self-certifying the worth of their own work, and also tend to
US military’s resilience programs are not wholly voluntary, nor “present [positive psychology work] as virtuous.” Housing
67
are the exercises conducted anonymously, begging questions military resilience initiatives within positive psychology para-
of rights to autonomy, privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity digms present several conundra.
for the participants. If participants respond “deficiently,” they
could be mandated to attend MRT retraining, which is a drain First, positive psychology proponents view trauma and suffer-
on devoted combat-specific training time. With training time ing as undesirable experiences to be avoided, possibly sup-
70
at a premium, mission-driven and career-cognizant command- pressing known benefits of posttraumatic growth from combat
ers could be enticed to encourage their Soldiers to game those experiences and war-related trauma. In contrast to positive
tests by responding positively to assessments of resiliency, re- psychology, the underlying philosophy of SOF is arguably
gardless of how Soldiers actually feel internally. stoicism, in which pain is welcomed as part of the natural
71
order and suffering is relieved by maintaining objectivity and
Publications from GAT-associated researchers are notably equilibrium. Designing military resilience programs and evalu-
confirmatory toward each other; the literature on MRT, CSF, ating them on tenets of positive psychology 24,42 could misplace
and GAT evaluation 41,66 has superlative compliments of fellow emphases on pain avoidance and overemphasize virtuousness

Resilience and Suicide in SOF | 63