Page 24 - JSOM Fall 2022

Active Warfighter Resilience

A Descriptive Analysis

2
Nikki E. Barczak-Scarboro, PhD ; Wesley R. Cole, PhD ;
1
J.D. DeFreese, PhD ; Barbara L. Fredrickson, PhD ; Adam W. Kiefer, PhD ;
5
4
3
7
6
8
MaryBeth Bailar-Heath, PsyD ; Riley J. Burke, DO ; Stephen M. DeLellis, MPAS ;
11
Shawn F. Kane, MD ; James H. Lynch, MD ; Gary E. Means, MD ;
10
9
13
Patrick J. Depenbrock, MD ; Jason P. Mihalik, PhD *
12
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Our aim in this study was to psychometrically test 10 years ago in conjunction with rising Servicemember sui­
3
4
resilience assessments (Ego Resiliency Scale [ER89], Con­ cide rates, there is no consensus on resilience measurement.
nor­Davidson Resilience Scale [CD­RISC 25], Responses to The present study aimed to psychometrically assess multiple
Stressful Experiences Scale [RSES short­form]) and describe resilience metrics and describe resilience with respect to stress­
resilience levels in a Special Operations Forces (SOF) combat related factors in active­duty SOF combat Servicemembers.
sample. Methods: Fifty­eight SOF combat Servicemembers ei­
ther entering SOF (career start; n = 38) or having served mul­ One methodological review of resilience scales postulated that
5
tiple years with their SOF organization (mid­career; n = 20) the 25­item CD­RISC was the most psychometrically sound
self­reported resilience, mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) but concluded that there was still no gold standard. That is, no
history, and total military service. Results: All resilience met­ single psychometric assessment excels in providing criterion,
rics demonstrated acceptable internal consistency, but ceiling content, and construct validity alongside internal consistency,
effects were found for CD­RISC and RSES scores. ER89 scores reproducibility, and floor/ceiling effects. Resilience psycho­
4
5
1
were moderate on average. ER89 scores were higher in SOF metric assessments include the CD­RISC and ER89, both of
career start than mid­career Servicemembers (η = 0.07) when which were created to measure one’s resilience dispositions and
2
p
6
accounting for the interaction between SOF career stage and tendencies. These metrics have exhibited acceptable internal
total military service (η = 0.07). Discussion: SOF mid­career consistency in military 7­11 and civilian adult 12,13 samples. Be­
2
p
Servicemembers had similar ER89 resilience scores with more cause of the relatively taxing military environment, research­
10
total military service. The SOF career start combat Service­ ers have created a military­based resilience scale, the RSES,
members had higher ER89 measured resilience with less total which explained incremental variance in posttraumatic stress
military service only, potentially showing a protective effect disorder symptoms after controlling for the CD­RISC.
of greater service before entering SOF. Conclusion: The ER89
may be a more optimal military resilience metric than the Servicemembers have endorsed high resilience relative to the
10
other metrics studied; longitudinal research on SOF combat RSES and the CD­RISC 7,14 ceilings in military resilience lit­
Servicemember resilience is warranted. erature. A notable exception to ceiling effects was a study of
Servicemembers deployed to combat settings (i.e., in theater).
8
Keywords: ego resiliency; US Army; US Air Force; psychomet- It is possible that military Servicemembers selected their occu­
rics; readiness pation because they were high in resilience, but high scores do
not align with the mental health problems seen in active and re­
tired Servicemember samples. 15­17 Being mentally healthy (i.e.,
with low mental illness symptoms, high well­being) is a pos­
Introduction
tulated tertiary component of resilience, and these constructs
Resilience, an individual’s capacity to equilibrate or adapt affec­ have been associated across multiple populations. This dis­
18
tive and behavioral responses to adverse physical or emotional crepancy between Servicemembers endorsing high resilience,
1
experiences, is an increasingly popular topic in military re­ as well as having a prevalence of clinical mental health disor­
2
search and training settings. Although resilience research with ders, reduces the construct validity of those measures. Because
military Servicemember populations increased approximately resilience is a construct that is so inherently desired in the
*Correspondence to jmihalik@email.unc.edu
9
13
2
3
5
1 Nikki E. Barczak-Scarboro, Dr Wesley R. Cole, Dr J. D. DeFreese, Dr Adam W. Kiefer, COL (Ret) Shawn F. Kane, and Dr Jason P. Mihalik
are affiliated with the Matthew Gfeller Center, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel
1
Hill, NC. Drs Nikki E. Barczak-Scarboro, J.D. DeFreese, Adam W. Kiefer, and Jason P. Minalik are affiliated with Human Movement Science,
3
13
5
Department of Allied Health Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. Dr Barbara L. Fredrickson is affiliated
4
with the Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. Dr MaryBeth Bailar-Heath and Maj Riley
6
7
J. Burke are affiliated with Air Force Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, NC. LTC (Ret) Stephen M. DeLellis is affiliated with the Fort
8
9
Bragg Research Institute, The Geneva Foundation, Tacoma, WA. COL Shawn F. Kane is affiliated with the Department of Family Medicine,
10
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. COL (Ret) James H. Lynch is affiliated with Regenerative Orthopedics & Sports
11
Medicine, Annapolis, MD. COL Gary E. Means and COL Patrick J. Depenbrock are affiliated with United States Army Special Operations
12
Command, Fort Bragg, NC. Note: Dr Barczak­Scarboro is now affiliated with the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Mil­
itary Medicine collaborating with the Consortium for Health and Military Performance at the Uniformed Services University Department of
Military and Emergency Medicine.
22
22