Page 75 - JSOM Winter 2019

the coaching program “hit target” and provided considerable 19. Weaver MR. Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of
value for helping individuals understand themselves, adapt to tutors’ written responses. Assess Eval Higher Educ. 2006;31(3):
their environments, and implement effective strategies to meet 379–394.
their goals. The PEAC Program offers an example of a struc- 20. Department of the Army. Operations (ADP 3-0). Washington,
DC: US Army; 2017.
tured program of assessment, feedback, and coaching with 21. Böckler A, Herrmann L, Trautwein F-M, et al. Know thy selves:
promising results. Since most SOF units have assigned oper- learning to understand oneself increases the ability to understand
ational psychologists—many of whom are trained in perfor- others. J Cogn Enhancement. 2017;1(2):197–209. doi:10.1007/
mance coaching—the PEAC Program is easily implementable s41465-017-0023-6.
across the formation with limited additional investment. 22. Sosik JJ, Megerian LE. Understanding leader emotional intel-
ligence and performance: the role of self-other agreement on
transformational leadership perceptions. Group Organ Manag.
Disclosure 1999;24(3):367–390.
The authors have nothing to disclose. 23. Van Velsor E, Taylor S, Leslie JB. An examination of the rela-
tionships among self-perception accuracy, self-awareness, gender,
Author Contributions and leader effectiveness. Hum Resource Manage. 1993;32(2-3):
DB conceived the study concept, recruited participants, col- 249–263.
lected and analyzed the data, and wrote the first draft. MD 24. Judge TA, Bono JE. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—
coordinated coaching training for DB and provided critical self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emo-
tional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: a
assistance with writing the final manuscript. All authors read meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(1):80.
and approved the final manuscript. 25. Stajkovic AD, Luthans F. Self-efficacy and work-related perfor-
mance: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 1998;124(2):240.
References
1. US Army Special Operations Command. SOF truths. 2018. Avail-
able from http://www.soc.mil/USASOCHQ/SOFTruths.html. Ac-
cessed January 14, 2019.
2. US Army Special Operations Command. USASOC 2035. 2018.
Available from https://www.soc.mil/AssortedPages/USASOCOver
view2035.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2019.
3. Department of the Army. Army Leadership (ADRP 6-22). Wash-
ington, DC: US Army; 2012.
4. DeVries M. Special Operations Center of Excellence executive
and senior leader coaching. Unpublished manuscript; 2017.
5. International Coaching Federation. About ICF; 2018. Available
from https://coachfederation.org/about. Accessed January 13, 2019.
6. Staal MA, DeVries MR. Military operational psychology. Psychol
Serv. 2008.
7. American Psychological Association. Competency benchmarks in
professional psychology. 2011. Available from https://www.apa.
org/ed/graduate/revised-competency-benchmarks.doc. Accessed
May 14, 2019.
8. Finn SE, Fischer CT, Handler L. Collaborative/Therapeutic As-
sessment: a Casebook and Guide. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons; 2012.
9. Finn SE, Tonsager ME. Information-gathering and therapeutic
models of assessment: Complementary paradigms. Psychol As-
sess. 1997;9(4):374–385.
10. American Psychological Association. Ethical principles of psy-
chologists and code of conduct. 2002, Amended June 1, 2010,
and January 1, 2017; 2018. Available from http://www.apa.org
/ethics/code/index.aspx. Accessed January 13, 2019.
11. International Coaching Federation. Code of Ethics. 2008. Avail-
able from https://coachfederation.org/code-of-ethics. Accessed
January 13, 2019.
12. Shams L, Seitz AR. Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends
Cogn Sci. 2008;12(11):411–417.
13. Sigrist R, Rauter G, Riener R, et al. Augmented visual, auditory,
haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: a review.
Psychonomic Bull Rev. 2013;20(1):21–53.
14. Duncan BL. On Becoming a Better Therapist: Evidence-Based
Practice One Client at a Time. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association; 2014.
15. Campbell A, Hemsley S. Outcome Rating Scale and Session Rat-
ing Scale in psychological practice: clinical utility of ultra-brief Products Available for Purchase Through DLA, GSA,
measures. Clin Psychologist. 2009;13(1):1–9. Cardinal Health or with Government Purchase Card
16. Miller SD, Duncan BL, Brown J, et al. The outcome rating scale: GSA Schedule - GS-07F-5989R, Cage Code - 04JV2
a preliminary study of the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a
brief visual analog measure. J Brief Therapy. 2003;2(2):91–100.
17. Travers CJ, Morisano D, Locke EA. Self-reflection, growth goals,
and academic outcomes: a qualitative study. Br J Educ Psychol.
2015;85(2):224–241.
18. Randall KE, McEwen IR. Writing patient-centered functional 800.766.1365 | www.ChinookMed.com
goals. Phys Ther. 2000;80(12):1197–1203.

Performance Enhancement in US Army Special Operations | 73